Jump to content

User talk:Nikkimaria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bugle: Issue 227, March 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Four Corners hantavirus outbreak

[edit]

I have been working on this article for some time and I am wondering if the images are fine to use for a featured article? I tried to tidy up the information on Commons but I'm not used to editing pictures so I'm asking you since I see you a lot at FAC. Basically would the article pass an image review and if not what needs to be done? Velayinosu (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Velayinosu, licensing looks fine but File:NOAA_Nino.jpg is going to present issues around MOS:COLOUR. (I'd also suggest having a run through for other MOS issues before hitting FAC). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the original NOAA image with another that I think is better for this article. It's focused on North America, has fewer colors, and the labels for the colors are in the image rather than in a legend. I also added two more images. They're the three bottom-most images. Are they fine? (I also went through the MOS as you said and made other changes.) Velayinosu (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are fine, though you might want to consider archiving all of their source links as US federal websites have been less stable lately. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley reverrts

[edit]

Hey there. You keep reverting my edits of Elvis Presley where i change a line from "known mononymously as Elvis" to "Also known mononymously as Elvis". Your reason for the reverts is that "the original is sufficient". But i disagree. Saying he is "known mononymously as Elvis", just implies he is only ever called Elvis and not ever refered to by his surname, like Adele, Drake or Prince. Most people don't know those people's surnames. So saying that Elvis is "known mononymously as Elvis", makes it seem like his surname is also not well known, when in reality it's what most people know him by. Most news articles, social media posts and people in general, all usually call him by his full name. So i don't understand why you're so hellbent on not letting my edit through. Cherryblossomgirly (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that your edit is necessary, but you'd be welcome to take the issue to the article's talk page to see if others feel as you do. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 67

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 67, January – February 2025

  • East View Press and The Africa Report join the library
  • Spotlight: Wikimedia+Libraries International Convention and WikiCredCon
  • Tech tip: Suggest page

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --18:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of Excessive Content Removal on Multiple Pages

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Plumber. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Plumber (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plumber, if you'd like to gain consensus for additions like this one, I'd suggest opening a discussion at the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Users cannot remove entire infoboxes from Wikipedia without any consensus. This is highly improper. --Plumber (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Plumber, again, I'd suggest taking your concern to the talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Abraham Lincoln, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. --Plumber (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Plumber, please understand that policies and essays are not the same thing. Policies are like rules that all editors are generally expected to abide by. Essays are more like opinion pieces - they are not generally enforceable, and trying to enforce an essay over a policy as you are doing is only going to get you into trouble. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind you to WP:Avoid personal remarks and abide by WP:Content removal. There is no explanation any editor could give to justify removing Abraham Lincoln's children from his infobox, especially when they have their own Wikipedia pages. --Plumber (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Plumber, Content Removal is not something you can require anyone to abide by. I have already explained the edit you mention at the article's talk page and invite you to join the discussion there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 March 2025

[edit]
It's an ecstasy, my spring.
Let them know what you think!
Read this, then forget all about it.
Life on the Wiki as usual!
And WMF invites multi-year research fund proposals
The Oscars, politics, and death elbow for the most attention.
The photographers are the celebrities!
And very unusual biographical images.
Send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Elvis Presley § Birthplace in lead section

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elvis Presley § Birthplace in lead section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are interested, there's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Goldman Band#Where is my template section for Goldman Band Cornet Soloists?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review on FAC

[edit]

I have seen many FAC with your comments about image review: some of the images needs US tag, or where and when was the image published? Now, I am curious. Are there any criteria of images in FAC? What other criterias after I have mentioned them? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dedhert.Jr, here are the FA criteria; #3 is the main one dealing with images specifically. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red April 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | April 2025, Vol 11, Issue 4, Nos. 326, 327, 335, 336


Online events:

Announcements (Events facilitated by others):

Tip of the month:

  • When creating biographies, don't forget to use Template:DEFAULTSORT.
    Accessible from "Wiki markup" at the foot of the page being edited,
    it allows categories to be listed under the subject's family name rather than their first or given name.

Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool)

  • 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,057,083, 412,857 women)
  • 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women)

Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period!

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

FAC mentor

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria

Would you be available to be a FAC mentor for me to get Byzantine Empire across the line? Or can you recommend someone else that would be interested? It's an exhausting effort and never-ending, but I think we can get there. It just may take some more time. I don't have the competence yet to do this alone, but I've learned a lot this last year, so I don't think it will demand much time other than an investment initially for the visibility. Biz (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biz, I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you anticipating the FAR close with removal and seeking help with a future re-FAC? Or are you looking for help with the FAR? If the latter, I wouldn't be able to help since I'm the coordinator, but you might have success with Milhist editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I plan to keep working on it; I'm not sure how that translates in the review process. If it gets delisted, it removes any sense of urgency, and I have a lot of competing priorities. I will take your suggestion and look around. Biz (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria, as you know the article is now delisted, but with a list of quality issues. I am evaluating if I have it in me to keep working on the article until all those issues are addressed. Some are easy (a few hours of work), others will take months (assuming I spend 1-2 hours a day). Assuming I do this, and to help me decide -- would the next step be to submit the article for GA assessment, re-FAC or something else?
FWIW two editors, who downvoted, have explicitly said I should not work on the article. I've had no luck finding a mentor. (I've learned a lot in the review process but need to improve my ability to write in summary style and have better attention to detail.) Biz (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Biz, it's not required to go through GA before FA, so it's your choice whether to go GA, PR, or FA. If you're not confident, going through all three will get your more progressive feedback. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weather charts in country articles

[edit]
Temperature change in Germany, each bar represents the average temperature over that year.

I know we've had a discussion with this editor before about these historical charts that are non-legible and only shows a few degrees of change... I just don't recall where There being added all over again... I removed this one. Do you recall where this conversation took place? Moxy🍁 17:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Archive_13#Chart_spam or a different one? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might be it...... I'm completely wrong about who was involved in this conversation before. Moxy🍁 23:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also possible there's another conversation somewhere - just a matter of tracking it down. Maybe try checking interactions for the users you think were involved? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Omg... use that tool all time for socks.... Never thought about using it in this manner thank you. Moxy🍁 23:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Everett Fox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bible studies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No further delation

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Gisbert K. I noticed that you recently removed content from Clarinet without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   18:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had already started a conversation on the talk page before you posted this; I'd suggest we continue things there. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

[edit]

hi, I just wanted to say thank you for correcting my mistakes on the information about Ridhima Pandey without removing much and if you have any advice for me feel free to give it as I'll work on them. Ecopalampur (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and I have a request also can you please add information about her parents on the page you removed it earlier so I am assuming I did something slightly wrong. Ecopalampur (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ecopalampur, I'd suggest taking a look at sourcing - IMDb is not generally considered reliable. The parents are included in the article but since they are not notable not in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thankyou for the response. In near future if i need your help regarding something could you please just guide and help me as I am just a beginner. Ecopalampur (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for your help with getting Veiqia to FA Lajmmoore (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White chocolate FA mentor

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I was hoping to get some guidance before nominating white chocolate for FA. My last FA nomination, history of chocolate failed as there were concerns the article was not comprehensive and that the prose was choppy. I've tried to ensure those issues didn't persist in this article, although I'm a little shaky on whether I've succeeded, particularly in the market section. I hoped to see if you were interested in taking a look over, as you are the only FA mentor I can see who has promoted a food article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 06:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look later this week. In the interim, do you think all of the other concerns that came up for history of chocolate have been addressed in this article (even those that did not result in an oppose)? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou so much. I believe so, I'm not a good writer so there were a fair few times where clarification was needed, but part of those issues came from representing shifting scholarly opinion which isn't really relevant here. I've also given this article many more revisions than history of chocolate, including leaving it for a month before returning for an edit and lead rewrite, which helped. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: March 2025

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

The Signpost: 9 April 2025

[edit]
Fellow doctor Osama Khalid remains behind bars for "violating public morals" by editing.
Major changes to core content policy, or still-developing plan for new initiative?
Defeat, or just a setback?
Plus: 30-year anniversary of wiki software commemorated.
Our content is free, our infrastructure is not!
What is to be done?
Advice to aspirants: "Read RfA debriefs", including this one.
Rest in peace.
Snow White sinking, Adolescence soaring, spacefarers stranded, this list has it all!
The Wikimedia Foundation's announcement from Diff.
Gadzooks!
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian cricket team in England in 1948

[edit]

Absolutely understand your argument re: Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. The problem has been that whenever I've tried to implement any of them, they've been reversed. See, for example this edit. The point is that the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 isn't practical given the length of the 11 long articled that one is trying to cram into an already long article. Klbrain (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is trying to cram the entire article - a merge doesn't have to involve every word from the source article. The poster at the target article's talk page proposed two sentences, which is too far the other way, but something in between would be more manageable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, but the problem I found when attempting this was that the articles are long, detailed and referenced, without as much overlap with the target as one might expect. Klbrain (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you missed it

[edit]
Hello, Nikkimaria. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions prove the rule

[edit]

Although coordinates are usually displayed in the title, for the resting places people they are only given in the infobox. This can be seem in Otto von Bismarck, Margaret Thatcher, Josip Broz Tito, and Enver Hoxha, just to name a few famous heads of state. There are reasons not to put coordinates inline, first, it is jarring for the readers, since the vast majority of cases articles on people don't have any coordinates. Second, mobile readers don't get to see coordinates at all. Abductive (reasoning) 18:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it can be both jarring and not seen at all, but if it's problematic to have it in the title the next best option is to omit entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would have to be discussed on the talk page of the infobox officeholder template, since the template has the field |resting_place_coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't. There is currently no requirement in the template to either use the parameter or limit use of the parameter to inline. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you look at template:Infobox person, the parent template for infobox officeholder, you will see that it just calls for the coordinates to be inline. Abductive (reasoning) 19:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Officeholder isn't a child of person, and person also doesn't require use of the parameter or forbid title. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus wants it in the infobox, and not the title. Look at other examples. And of course templates have "parents". In the very creation of person the creator says, New code to centralize all similar templates. Abductive (reasoning) 20:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other examples aren't consensus for this article, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Some templates do have parents, but these two particular templates aren't in a parent-child relationship, and even if they were no requirement exists. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Hi Nikki, I hope you’re keeping well. A couple of years ago you were good enough to do the image review on the St Scholastica Day riot FAC. Would you be able to do the honours on its second attempt? No problems if you’d rather not, of course. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 228, April 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

[edit]

Wishing you peace, joy, and renewal this Easter season. Thank you for all you do to keep Wikipedia growing and thriving.

Stay well, and happy editing! MSincccc (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with cite consistency?

[edit]

Regarding Silent Parade you wrote "..., and consistency in citation formatting." I'm looking at the cites, and I cannot find any inconsistencies, but I maybe I'm ind to them. Was there a particular citation issue/inconsistency that you saw?

Regarding prose, I'll re-list at Peer Review, but keep working the article myself. I'll resubmit at FAC after Peer Review is done, or I'm certain the prose is great. Noleander (talk) Noleander (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the citation formats: the algorithm used in the article is: major sources use sfn template, and minor sources (e.g. newspaper articles used for only 1 or 2 cites) use plain ref (instead of sfn). That is the same algorithm I used for Margaret Sanger article which recently passed FAC a couple of months ago (and that algorithm was discussed & approved during that FAC review). Noleander (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noleander, some examples: some citations include locations and others don't; most use dmy dates but look at footnote 64; some magazines have publishers, others don't; 61 is incomplete; CNN is italicized in 64 but not 69. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, thanks. Noleander (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boop! The Musical

[edit]

Hi, I saw that you commented on this article's Talk page. Subsequently, an IP added a huge amount of non-neutral info (only positive reviews) and tried to delete all the less favorable reviews cited from the critical reaction section. See this. I reverted it, but there may be some reviews there that ought to be mentioned. Would you kindly take a look and see if you think there is anything there worth preserving. This and this and this may be helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't think I'm best positioned to take that on. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About 2025 Election

[edit]

After Ivanector completely changed my edit, I went back in and incorporated his edit into a neutral one--as suggested by Wikipedia. Some people are adamant Rebel News is far-right, but I read the far-right politics page on Wikipedia and I do not know of any publication or Party that is like that in Canada. Many people deem the spectrum outdated as many Parties are syncretic today. That's my point. I've reached out to both Ghost of Dan Gurney and Ivanector. "Far-right" "Far-left" --- I think these are subjective and not based on traditional characteristics from 80 years ago. Anyway, I am reaching out and trying to work with editors but they seem rigid. I would like the David Cochrane CBC News interview and Michel Cormier's statement included, at least. The youtube links were added because they contained the interview and the disturbance and CBC's point of view. Thank you. JayElk33 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I sent this to the wrong person! JayElk33 (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for University of Miami

[edit]

University of Miami has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It's a very useful landing page for people who want to learn more about Mayor McCheese. Tom Hubbard (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom Hubbard, external links shouldn't appear in the body of articles, and that site in particular is not considered a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of William Toney

[edit]

What are you doing you ruining the page? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted infobox that is showing information about inmate it was important DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't - that shouldn't be there, since the inmate is not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of police, high sources are put there inmate was involved with famous Trevor Mcdonald etc DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLP1E - sources covering someone only in relation to a high-profile event do not make that person notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It nowhere states you should delete whole freaking infbox full of info that is good for reader to read DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the person isn't notable, then we shouldn't have a biography of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How did you come to that conclusion that he isnt notable?DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article isn't about him and all of the sourcing provided discusses him only in relation to the event that the article is about. That's fairly textbook WP:1E. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? If you really believe the inmate is notable and you have evidence for that, you could write a separate article about him. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its article about crime he committed, it includes him and police officer he killed DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which, again, would support a determination that he's not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not one event anyway DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the crime that he committed. Everything else, and all coverage, follows from that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Book review

[edit]

To what book review do you refer? Is Dirck 2009 a book review? Please see the comment I posted today at Talk:Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia under the heading "Citation help"?

Another question: On what basis do you consider book reviews poor sources? I can think of none. Leading scholars write book reviews and sometimes use what they've written in them in books. Or vice versa. I do not believe that their words become better sources in one forum than in the other. I've never seen anyone disparage book reviews as sources. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a book review. Book reviews generally are not subject to the peer-review process. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either are books. Only journal articles are. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Books can be, particularly from scholarly presses, and/or can be subject to editorial review. Book reviews are typically treated more as opinion pieces. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped citation

[edit]

In the edit you made at 14:21, there is something odd. Footnote 178 is missing the citation to Jonathan White's book. I thought that you inadvertently removed it, so I went to "Edit source" to put it back, but it's still there. So why doesn't it show in footnote 178? I tried deleting "{{" from the front of the citation. That put it back, but not in the right format. ANOTHER EDITOR FIXED IT.

On another matter, I think that the fact that the Suspension Clause is Article I, section 9, will be of interest to readers who are curious about what the Constitution actually says about suspending habeas corpus. But since you don't want it in the text, I've created a footnote for it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second inaugural

[edit]

You changed the citation of the final paragraph of the second inaugural from the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln to as it appears on the Lincoln Memorial. This involved no change in Lincoln's words. But the final paragraph is different in the two sources. The reason that your edit involved no change in Lincoln's words was that the version cited to the Collected Works was actually the version on the Lincoln Memorial. The Collected Works has "a just, and a lasting peace," whereas the Lincoln Memorial has "a just and lasting peace," which removes the comma and the second "a." I believe that we should consider the Collected Works as definitive, but I wanted to get your thoughts on this before I edit it. I can cite no authority for my belief that the Collected Works should be viewed as definitive, so I would not insist on changing it if you prefer to let it be. I also thought of adding a footnote stating the difference between the two versions, but I think that would be going overboard. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One reason to take the Collected Works, if not as definitive, at least as taking precedence over the Lincoln Memorial version, is that the Collected Works came later and, I presume, were edited by scholars, whereas the Lincoln Memorial version might not have been. For your convenience, here is the Collected Works' second inaugural: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln8/1:711?rgn=div1;sort=occur;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;q1=with+malice

By the way, The Library of America version is in accord with the Collected Works. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that "a just and lasting peace" is more frequently reported than "a just, and a lasting peace", so I'd advocate for keeping the former. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Keeping the former turns your change of the citation into an unwitting correction. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

rm non-RS

[edit]

Hi, I notice you do a lot of edits which simply delete references to self-published peerage websites. Rather than simple deletion, I think it would be helpful to replace each deleted ref-tag with a {{cn}}. This would be almost no extra work for you as editor, and would improve the article by avoiding the danger of readers thinking the relevant assertion was supported by one of the article's remaining references. jnestorius(talk) 07:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red May 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | May 2025, Vol 11, Issue 5, Nos. 326, 327, 337, 338


Online events:

Announcements (events facilitated by others):

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,269 articles during this period!
  • 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,061,363; 414,126 women)
  • 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% (2,057,083 bios; 412,857 women)

Tip of the month:

  • Those of you who experience harassment while trying to create or improve articles about women
    are welcome to bring your problems to our attention on the Women in Red talk page.

Other ways to participate:

--Lajmmoore (talk 09:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Culling of Claude Vautin family background, and family

[edit]

Hi, This is not a thank you, but a plea. Some of us spend a great deal of our time trying to establish facts about those we are documenting. Then a chunk of it disappears; it's gone for good, and before the article is even given a rating. If there was some Wikipedia rule broken or some other reasonable objection, I would always try to do the right thing. Why not discuss your issues first on the article Talk page? It's somewhat demotivating to waste time and effort, especially when all the information provided for the edit is 'cull'. Ponder that.TrimmerinWiki (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this material is original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding...

[edit]

...this,[1] I'd like a detailed explanation of why you have an issue with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is already an image of the grave in the article, it provides no clear value. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It confirms that it's real and where it is, reinforcing the rebuking of the urban legend about Disney's remains. So, are you on a crusade to rid Wikipedia of external links to Findagrave? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It generally shouldn't be used to try to verify article content. If someone isn't convinced by what's there already, this ain't gonna do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question about your being on a crusade. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have an interest in cleaning up misuse. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering how you found it so fast. I figure any Findagrave additions must be on your radar somehow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, the article is on my watchlist. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it wasn't magic, just luck. And your primary argument is that it's redundant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My primary argument is it doesn't add value. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Sjones23

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kris Kristofferson § Potential revamp?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant

[edit]

Hello. A tag was put in the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. Could you please join the discussion in the article's talk page, why the article is too long, and navigation issue(s). Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have significantly reduced the article. Can you please review? I believe the article length tag should be removed. Also, the Background section has been removed. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 May 2025

[edit]
As always, Wikimedia community governance relies on user participation; plus, more updates from the Wikimedia world
Scrapers, an Indian lawsuit, and a crash-or-not-crash?
And other new research findings.
And don't bite those newbies!
And don't bite those newbies!
Television dramas, televised sports, film, the Pope, and ... bioengineering at the top of the list?
Community volunteers network among themselves and use technology to counter attacks on information sharing.
A look at some product and tech highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan (July–December 2024).
Hey! At least it is something!
Zounds!
Would a billion articles be a good idea?
There's a lot more to this than you think.
I wonder about having crats, but decided to become one anyway.
Just beautiful photos!
Rest in Paradise.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Louis Theroux's surname

[edit]

How exactly is a source where Louis Theroux is specifically pointed out to be pronouncing his surname as "ther-oo" instead of as "ther-oh" unreliable? Not to mention how Louis himself very obviously doesn't use the "ther-oh" pronunciation that that so-called "reliable" source (Library of Congress) promotes as heard in this YouTube video titled "Louis Theroux Answers Your Questions | Actually Me" at the 0:10 timestamp where the man himself pronounces his surname as "ther-oo". GinormousBuildings (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source has been deprecated by the community. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source being deprecated notwithstanding, it still very much is correct in stating that Louis Theroux's surname is pronounced by Louis Theroux himself as "ther-oo", not "ther-oh", contrary to what that Library of Congress website says.
I'd say this part of the "Deprecated sources" page should apply in this case:
"In particular, reliability always depends on the specific content being cited, and all sources are reliable in at least some circumstances and unreliable in at least some others. Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." GinormousBuildings (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citations to deprecated sources are appropriate in some circumstances, for example ABOUTSELF cases - but that doesn't apply here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, let us stick with the definitely reliable source that is definitely not wrong in saying that Louis Theroux's surname is pronounced as "ther-oh", not "ther-oo". GinormousBuildings (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference adjustment on the Lorinne Vozoff page

[edit]

Thanks for the cleanup—appreciate the sourcing heads-up! ~~~~ Fixthisbs (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Lind

[edit]

Please see the recent edits at Jenny Lind. Can you do anything about this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I reverted your edit together with a bunch of other edits. Would you please hold off on removing it again until the current edit wars stop? BTW, why don't you want to say the name of the artist? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will do; see MOS. I think this is a misguided class assignment - I've posted to the Education Noticeboard. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looking at WP:CAP, I am not sure what language you are focusing on in the guideline, but it looks to me like it encourages the identification of the artist. Also, I have often seen artist names included if notable, and if the caption is still pretty concise. Please let me know. That edit summary by the student is weird: "class assignment to make article more concise". Can you imagine that a professor told the students to hack away encyclopedic content without knowing anything about the MOS or our usual biography conventions? Someone should discuss the "assignment" with the prof. and suggest that "Be Bold" also includes "Be careful" with referenced content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the last body sentence. And unfortunately yes, I can imagine that! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean in MOS:CREDITS. OK, let's take it out when this dies down. Yet another reason why infoboxes actually limit the usefulness of Wikipedia articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian National merit award

[edit]
The Canada Barnstar of National Merit
Thank you for your decades of service related to the improvement and creation of Canadian content. You're a National asset!Moxy🍁 13:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sandwich on England

[edit]

Hi Nikki,

Under history in England, under ancient history, the images seem cluttered on desktop. I think the image of the fort could be moved on the left or removed to clear space. Requesting this to you as I know you're good at editing. 2A0A:EF40:E78:FC01:59B7:763E:2145:1944 (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the fort image could be changed to the Roman Baths, which is a more bigger Roman attraction in England. This image could work, with the caption: The Roman Baths in Bath, Somerset; a temple was constructed on the site between 60–70CE in the first few decades of Roman Britain. 2A0A:EF40:E78:FC01:59B7:763E:2145:1944 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh, sorry Nikki! Forgive me. This seems a bit rude to suggest you to edit something. I'm sorry! I'm new and just want to help. 2A0A:EF40:E78:FC01:59B7:763E:2145:1944 (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP, not a problem. I think though that moving an image left would create more of a sandwiching problem than the current arrangement - that would result in text squished between two images. I don't oppose changing the fort image to the Baths image you suggest, but wouldn't that have the same problem of too many images for the section? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80

[edit]

On 8 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the only surviving autograph pages of one of Bach's chorale cantatas ended up in three libraries on two continents? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blank lines

[edit]

Please don't add blank lines before and after your comments. It makes some screen reader software think your comment is a completely separate list, which means that it gets announced separately ("A list of one item: All else being equal, as much as adding one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC). A list of 37 items: [next comment starts here]").

If you want to know more about it, there's an explanation in WP:LISTGAP, but the easy rule of thumb is that if there's a bullet/asterisk anywhere in the indentation, then there shouldn't be blank lines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adding them - unfortunately it's a longstanding wikEd bug. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't save what you can see in the editing window? I'm familiar with its page-wide &nbsp replacements, but I've not heard of it inserting new blank lines. Unfortunately, it seems like very little maintenance is done on WikEd (no updates for almost eight years – unfortunately, that suggests that some day, there will be a web browser upgrade that it can't handle, and it'll just disappear on you).
On talk pages, have you considered using one of the discussion scripts instead? I like the Reply tool in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion but other people prefer Wikipedia:Convenient Discussions. They're both particularly handy for replying in the middle of long discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I see no blank lines in the editing window, and suddenly they appear in the saved version. Maybe I'll look at the discussion script options. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How frustrating that must be, to have unwanted and unannounced transformations done. I'm sorry you're having to put up with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember who said it when, but: that the reply feature adds the blank lines. I never use that so can't tell but it may be worth investigating and go for change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Reply tool never breaks list formatting by adding blank lines. If you are replying to an un-indented comment, it will add a blank line before your indented comment, but this is (a) explicitly compliant with MOS:ACCESS – read the first paragraph in WP:LISTGAP – and (b) requested by editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 229, May 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cees Houtman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bible studies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why?!

[edit]

The content I added to the article about Iran is actually suitable for this article. What is your reason? If you think there is a minor issue, please correct it rather than completely removing the content! Kanetyuii (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kanetyuii, I don't think there is a minor issue, I think the content should be completely removed, and it looks like I'm not alone in thinking that - you've now restored the material despite multiple different editors removing it. Please go to the article's talk page and make your case for why you feel the content should be included and build consensus for that position. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Could you please do the tasks you mentioned? I don’t know how to do them. If you ask ChatGPT about this book, you'll definitely be amazed by its positive descriptions. Kanetyuii (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanetyuii It sounds like you're more interested in promoting this book than in improving an article about Iran. Hrm... —C.Fred (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kanetyuii, click on this link and type why you think this content should be added. Then wait to see if other editors agree. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kanetyuii Moxy🍁 17:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

talk:John Drughorn

[edit]

Please assist correcting the Sir John Drughorn page. I have just located his family archivist so may be able to document my edit you reverted if I have better knowledge of what to reference. Thanks. StewyOnIsle (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StewyOnIsle, user-generated genealogy sites and unpublished materials generally cannot be referenced, and primary sources can be referenced only with extreme caution. This page summarizes the status of many common sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: April 2025

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Books & Bytes – Issue 68

[edit]
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 68, March–April 2025

In this issue we highlight two resource renewals, #EveryBookItsReader, a note about Phabricator, and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

WP:MOSBIO has an RfC

[edit]

WP:MOSBIO has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. MWFwiki (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2025

[edit]
And comment is requested on a privacy whitepaper.
And other courtroom drama.
And how he knows it: all about lawyer letters and editing logs.
Why the language barrier is not the only impediment to navigating sources from another culture.
And QR codes for every page!
When an editor is ready to become staff at a public library (not a brother in a fraternity).
Rest in peace.
The technology behind it, and the other stuff.
Gadzooks!
And more.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikipeidiaEditor and TheodoresTomfooleries

[edit]

I believe these two editors are the same, and even so, they are both edit-warring on the article, People's Socialist Republic of Albania. Maybe you can start a sockpuppet investigation? TheUzbek (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's enough evidence at this point to conclusively link that account to any particular editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why reverse my change for SPR Albania's form of government?

[edit]

Why change 'Unitary Marxist-Leninist one party socialist state under a totalitarian dictatorship' to simply 'communist state' as I feel like my description was much more detailed and gives a better idea of the form of government that the country actually had, whereas 'communist state' is too vague WikipeidiaEditor (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Unitary Marxist-Leninist one party socialist state under a totalitarian dictatorship" is original research. Theiris no academic that defines the form of government if these states in such a convoluted manner. It also does not make sense. The whole point of totalitarianism is that adages like Nazism, Fascism and Communism is wasteful because they have more in common than what differentiates them. TheUzbek (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure why you consider my description as 'convoluted' but I am okay with simplifying it a bit. However, the country obviously followed Marxism-Leninism and was definitely a dictatorship. For example, there was only one party to vote for, and the government introduced extreme laws such as completely banning religion in 1967. I don't really understand your last point. WikipeidiaEditor (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Unitary Marxist-Leninist one party socialist state under a totalitarian dictatorship": no academic uses such a convoluted expression. They simply say "totalitarian" or "communist state". The term " Marxist-Leninist state is less used than "communist state". Which Marxist-Leninist state was not a one-party state? From what liberal democratic perspective can a one-party state not be a dictatorship? Isn't totalitarianism synonymous with dictatorship, so why have "totalitarian dictatorship" when totalitarian as a term is synonymous with dictatorship? Simply call it a "Communist state": state power is monoplised by a communist party, and the state is organised on the lines of unified power. And from a liberal democratic perspective, such a system is a dictatorship. You won't persuade editors who believe communism is democratic with that convoluted sentence that barely makes any sense. Most scholars simply refer to these states as "communist states", and if it suffices for them, it should suffice for Wikipedia! TheUzbek (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Calm down. I specified dictatorship because the country was much more of a dictatorship than many other communist or socialist countries. Saying that every communist country were equally totalitarian is like saying that Yugoslavia was as bad as Democratic Kampuchea, even tho Democratic Kampuchea was a million times worse. Also, many other Wikipedia pages specify the form of government the way I did. For example: Democratic Kampuchea, Socialist Republic of Romania, and People's Republic of Bulgaria just to name a few. Also, you need to stop being so aggressive for no reason. WikipeidiaEditor (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totalitarianism is a controversial academic scholars. Read the talk page at the Socialist People's Republic of Albania. Comparative communism as an academic school was established as an anti-totalitarian way to comprehend these states academically. From a totalitarian perspective Yugoslavia is indeed totalitarian. I have never read an academic "totalitarianist" (an adherent of the totalitarian school) who has made a table or an article about the degree of totalitarianism.. i don't believe anyone has made that paper since the whole point of totalitarianism is that it's total; you cannot be more or less totalitarian. Either you are or you're not. TheUzbek (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yugoslavia was more authoritarian rather than totalitarian. I understand that my description might not be very scholarly, but I still think that simply called it a communist state doesn't to justice to showing just how bad of a dictatorship the country had. Many other wikipedia pages include descriptions like mine. WikipeidiaEditor (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"doesn't to justice to showing just how bad of a dictatorship the country had". This is POV-pushing. It is not WP's work to showcase how bad anything was... It is to showcase neutrality, objectivity and what the sources say. TheUzbek (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand what I mean. I am talking about objectivity. Communist Albania was objectively more of a dictatorship than most communist countries. In fact, it is considered one of the most brutal communist regimes in history. That's not me pushing my views, I'm just trying not to oversimplify things. My earlier description is based on how the country objectively functioned, and not all communist countries can be considered totalitarian dictatorships as was Albania. WikipeidiaEditor (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Communist Albania was objectively more of a dictatorship than most communist countries." That is you're opinion. I don't think it was "more of a dictatorship", and I doubt any academic would say that either. I will also add that form of government does not necessarily have anything to do with how brutal a system is (or how well functioning it is). As for oppressive, yes, it was oppressive from a liberal perspective. I agree with that respective, but you are entering a whole different level of discussion here. I, as a firm believer in liberal democratic capitalism believe that American capitalism is brutal, and I believe that most Western Europeans believe the same thing. However, the infobox (and the form of government) should not be changed to clarify what type of capitalism the US has. That is simply not the point.
Albania was a communist state. While it might have gone further than other communist states, everyone can agree that is what it was. All its policies emanate from that fact. TheUzbek (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about all the other wikipedia pages with descriptions like mine? WikipeidiaEditor (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So your last arguement is because other people do foolish things so should I? Actually, if you check articles on liberal democratic states, the form of government is listed neutrally (the United States, United Kingdom, France et cetra)... However, there are many editors who, like you, try to enforce POV on non-liberal states. But why Saudi Arabia has a neutral government description and not Afghanistan has little to do with WP policy and more to do with the editors editing that article. TheUzbek (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
idk why you get so mad lmao. I just think you should go around changing everyone else's edits as well 😂 WikipeidiaEditor (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not, but if that is how you read me, sorry. I am, however, blunt and direct. I am also trying to explain the errors of your thinking.
Notice that this was discussed - the form of government of SPR of Albania - on the article's talk page. You can always start a discussion there again. TheUzbek (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its alr 👍 WikipeidiaEditor (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Soule

[edit]

Why delete find-a-grave? Plenty of wiki bios have it as a reference. If there is an official wiki policy against it, then please disclose that to me, because it is not followed.

Babhla (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Babhla, see its entry at WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Hall (TV Series)

[edit]

Please provide an explanation for your removal of the paragraph I added on the colour-blind casting controversy sparked by the Wolf Hall TV series. 2607:FEA8:BF03:F900:DE72:F13B:1521:6886 (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's sourced to the Daily Mail, an unreliable source that is not accepted on WP. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I will replace the paragraph using acceptable sources such as Radio times, the Telegraph, Commentary magazine etc. 2607:FEA8:BF03:F900:774F:B644:8D2E:7599 (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red June 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | June 2025, Vol 11, Issue 6, Nos. 326, 327, 339, 340


Online events:

Announcements:

  • Who are the most overlooked and interesting Women in Red? We've no idea,
    but we're putting together our list of the 100 most interesting ex-Women in Red.
    We are creating the list to celebrate 10 years of Women in Red and we hope to present it at Wikimania.
    We are ignoring the obvious, so do you have a name or subject we should consider?
    Can you suggest a DYK style hook?
    If you are shy about editing that page, you are welcome to add ideas and comments on the talk page.
  • The World Destubathon, 16 June - 13 July, 2025

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,492 articles during this period!
  • 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women)
  • 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% (2,061,363 bios; 414,126 women)

Tip of the month:

  • Every language Wikipedia has its own policies regarding notability and reliable sources.
    Before translating an article from one language Wikipedia into English Wikipedia, research
    the subject and verify that the translated article will meet English Wikipedia's policy requirements.

Other ways to participate:

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Amtrak Susquehanna River Bridge

[edit]

I understand that you're trying to avoid consecutive links on Amtrak Susquehanna River Bridge, but removing any link to Amtrak is not helpful. I believe this is a case where the downside of consecutive links is smaller than the downside of not linking to the owner of the rail line and bridge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi.1415926535, why not actually say that Amtrak is the owner of the bridge, if that's the case? It would solve the issue and be clearer to boot. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best to fix it in the prose. I would have preferred that you'd done that originally rather than simply removing it. I've restored the hard-coded image size for now until Module:InfoboxImage or {{Infobox bridge}} is fixed so that the upright parameter works properly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pi.1415926535, I can't do that if I don't know that - the article doesn't say who owns the bridge (Adding: I do see now that it says so deep in the body - would suggest making this clear). As for the sizing, why not just call upright directly, if you feel it's needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox and lede already specified that Amtrak owns the rail line. Because of a bug in the module (see Module talk:InfoboxImage#Other size parameters cause upright to be ignored), the upright parameter doesn't currently work if certain other parameters are used in the infobox template. I've filed an edit request here to remove those other parameters from {{infobox bridge}} (as they shouldn't be there anyway) so that upright can be used. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you say, Amtrak owns the bridge itself - the subject of the article - is there a reason not to just say that? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to say that, but I do think it's important to indicate that Amtrak owns the whole rail line - including the bridge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removals of Southern History

[edit]

Why did you you remove the recording of Olaudah Equiano? Sunriseshore (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other media files present, and this one is less directly relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also removed the speech concerning reconstruction.
I would like an explanation as to how the excerpts the middle passage, and reconstruction efforts to secure Black voting rights after the Civil are are not 'directly relevant' to the article.
Got my popcorn for this one. Sunriseshore (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DETAIL - there are more specific articles in which this level of detail is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find that convincing, especially since scholarship on Southern History has made a clear line to bring the truth out in these subjects. The American South is at the center of the story.
Will be in touch! Sunriseshore (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds if not thousands of media files that could conceivably be added to this article; it cannot accommodate them. What mechanism would you propose for deciding which to include? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maple syrup, Manitoba and George Washington scheduled for TFA

[edit]

This is to let you know that the above articles have been scheduled as today's featured article for July 2025. Please check that the articles needs no amendment. Feel free to amend the draft blurbs, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2025. Please keep an eye on those pages, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartwell Cocke

[edit]

This article introduces the subject using his military rank before his name. Should the rank be used at the outset like that? Thanks for your help. Hoppyh (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I don't believe so, although it is pretty common. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

opponents versus rivals

[edit]

I prefer "rivals" to "opponents." One reason is that it was Goodwin's choice, and her use of "rivals" appears later in the paragraph. A more important reason is that "rivals" is more accurate. An opponent opposes, but Seward et al. did not oppose Lincoln -- they supported him after he won the nomination -- they merely preferred themselves over him. "Opponent" suggests that Lincoln and Seward et al. were on opposing sides in an election or a contest. But there were no sides, as there are in a general election, when Republican and a Democrat run against ("oppose") each other. There were merely rivals for the nomination. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the use of "rivals" later in the paragraph is a reason to prefer "opponents", to avoid repetitive phrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I agreed that we should not use "rivals" because it is used later in the paragraph, I would not think that it outweighed the fact that "opponent" is less accurate than "rival." Accuracy is more important than style (not that I agree with you on the style question). Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that "opponents" is any less accurate. But you'd be welcome to take this to article talk to get more views? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I offered reasons why I think that "rivals" is more accurate, I think that it would be appropriate for you to say why you disagree with those reasons, but, if you don't wish to, I'll drop it. I don't find the question sufficiently important to raise on the article talk page. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Rivals" and "opponents" are synonymous; "opponents" is a term commonly applied in primary contests among members of the same party, not only those involving multiple parties. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War

[edit]

Perhaps my edits have made this article too long and uncomfortable to read, sorry! I will stop editing it for a while. Can you help me make it more concise again? Thanks! RobertX7 (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fairgate case:

[edit]

Why did you remove the coordinates from this article, the data was referenced, I've stood their myself & find a Grave is a very reliable source.

Or are you confusing your atempt to be a gate keeper with vandalisim. It take hours to research & seconds to revert, hence the distorted ratio of editors to admin & why editors are leaving in droves... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4A43:8D5F:F64D:922D:B8D4:40A7:167E (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Because Find a Grave is deemed an unreliable site. See WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Find a Grave. - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, others think its fine & it lined up to what was there. I'll put the coordinates back but not the ref then you can revert for OR 😉 2A04:4A43:8D5F:F64D:922D:B8D4:40A7:167E (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it will be reverted if it's unsourced... - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Roman Republic

[edit]

Roman Republic has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —GoldRingChip 21:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: May 2025

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Recent Editing

[edit]

Two items recently I wanted to bring to your attention.

First, on 2010 NFC Championship Game, you edited the article here, so you had seen the lead fairly clearly. The article is then on the Main Page, and a user makes a poor edit here to the lead three hours later. You then come in 7 minutes later and tag the article with {{Lead}} here. Why? It's on the Main Page, you saw the previous state of the article, why not revert? I know you are an experienced editor so I am struggling to understand the mindset here to let a user make an unhelpful edit and then 7 minutes later tag the article, instead of just reverting to its previous state.

Second, regarding your addition of "United States" into the lead. WP:USPLACE is clear that using "City, Country" or "City, State, Country" is contrary to general American usage. Furthermore, the overriding consensus on these types of articles, across many sports, including those outside of the US, is that a country distinguisher in the body of the text is not necessary. All that considered, including WP:BRD, which as a longtime editor, I know you are familiar with, I respectfully request you find somewhere to start a discussion and try to gain consensus before continuing these edits. The impetus is on you to establish new consensus, not the other way around. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will open a discussion on the talk page to address the substantive concerns, but request that you leave the tag in place pending resolution. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this. As I said on the talk page, this isn't how content disputes work. Per {{MOS}}, it says This template should be used when the article appears to use styles that may be confusing to the layman, or even to everyone and additionally Place at the top of the article to alert editors that the article needs one or more kinds of non-trivial style cleanup throughout. You're abusing tagging to make a point. The addition of "United States" does not justify a full, top of the article tag. The infobox, which is in the lead and adjacent to the sentence, also clearly states "US". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"styles that may be confusing to the layman" is exactly the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet clearly an extraordinarily minor MOS dispute for an otherwise very well-formatted article. Not worthy of a tag, not the least of which in response to a content dispute. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On another topic, is it possible for you to archive this page? Its length is making responding difficult. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007:: "cleanup templates are used to inform readers and editors of ongoing discussions and attempts to fix the problems on the page". Suggesting that tagging in response to a dispute is inappropriate is exactly backwards. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for archiving. Can we focus the conversation to the talk page, so it is not split between there and here? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln

[edit]

There was a second comment from Nick dealing with Reconstruction here: [2]. Should a second source be cited. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of that comment was that he felt the quoting was excessive; I've shortened it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments from HF for you on the review page for Lincoln. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added material from HF tonight. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ErnestKrause, looks like both of the pending comments are about additions you've made recently - do you have the sources for those? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both answered; you might want to check it there. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the direction of comments taken on the nomination page regarding my correction to the Rhea 2002 book which I corrected here [3], and which has since been removed and replaced by your well-chosen alternative webcite source also for Rhea. It appears on the basis on that one source correction during the review, that therefore the entire sourcing for the article is being challenged, which sounds a little disproportional as its 1 source out of about 450 sources of very high quality. I've made what I thought was a generous offer to amend this view on the nomination page, though it appears to not be of useful effect with him. Its possible for me to invite other editors to see if they would like to comment with opinions about the nomination. I'm sort of leaning towards going forwards with the article nomination based on the 2-3 supports and what looks like a single oppose; what do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to withdraw at this point. The concern is that where other material has been copied from other articles, it may have similar problems with not being supported by the sources given. Your offer regards moving forward, but doesn't impact that copying which has already happened. HF asked if you could specify what in the article was brought in via CWW already. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My comment to him about the 2 CWWs which I did during the FAC in responses to edit requests was to state: "The list of battles I had added during FAC was removed by Nikkimaria which was originally taken from another Wikipedia article under rules for copying within Wikipedia; Nikkimaria has now removed it. Also, the list of death statistics for the Overland Campaign was copied from another Wikipedia article under the rules for copying within Wikipedia, for which Nikkimaria has now substituted another source." HF appeared to see this without useful effect. Possibly you might sharpen the wording of that statement from me to HF on the review page in a constructive way, and I'll support it. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there were earlier instances, eg the Sand Creek material, now removed? Are there others? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to last February then both of those adjacent sections for Native Americans and Foreign Policy included splits from their main articles which may no longer be visible due to many re-edits since then. The Native Americans section has been updated, expanded and re-formatted at least five or six times since then. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has been a somewhat quite week at the Lincoln article responses. It seems like there are about 6-7 supports for the article, and the image review and the source reviews still need to be done. Any thoughts of who might be invited to look at the image review and the source review for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like more comments from UC on the review page. Source review and Image review appear to have passed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice going on those closing economics section edits last week-end. Congratulations on the completed promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of talk page content

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive4&diff=prev&oldid=1295570820

If you don't want this on the FAR page I don't really care if it's deleted. I do ask that you use a different template because I don't see how it is a personal attack. (t · c) buidhe 16:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 230, June 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gettysburg Address

[edit]

In case you're looking for another article to trim, the Gettysburg Address needs it badly. I started and will return to it when I can. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick :-) Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Joker in The Simpsons.

[edit]

Hi, You have reverted my contribution about the Joker appearing in The Simpsons TV Series. Please let me know what was wrong. Thank you. Alexanderansilva (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexanderansilva, the source you cited is not reliable - see this list for more information. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll do it. Alexanderansilva (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is simpsonswiki.com a reliable source? Alexanderansilva (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, user-generated sources like open wikis are generally not considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Alexanderansilva (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to bother you, but what about screenrant.com/simpsons-best-batman-jokes-references/? Alexanderansilva (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I found the same website mentioned in other sources I concluded it is a reliable one. Thank you. Alexanderansilva (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Alexanderansilva (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Period

[edit]

Why did you remove the period that I inserted after footnote 329? Every other such footnote has a period at the end. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every other footnote which includes a reference places the period before the reference. This footnote already has a period before the reference. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "before the reference," do you mean in the note? If so, what does that have to do with whether to place a period at the end of the footnote? Also, if you hold your cursor over each of the footnotes in the notes, you'll see that they are inconsistent as to whether they have a period at the end. If you wish to make them consistent, I suggest including periods, because that way they will look the same as the footnotes that are in the text of the article, as opposed to in the notes. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2025

[edit]
Admins arrested in Belarus.
Pardon our alliteration!
A get-out-of-jail card!
And other new research publications.
Holy men and not-as-holy movies.
Get your self-nomination in by July 2nd!
After two years RuWiki fails to thrive.
With some sweet-and-sour sauce!
Every thing you need to know about the Wikimedia Foundation?
Egad!
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Kennedy (soldier)

[edit]

Why did you remove the notability template? I don't feel the subject is notable, as there doesn't seem to be any WP:SIGCOV. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - she's been the subject of numerous major newspaper articles, and is discussed in many sources on the history of Canadian women in the Second World War. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you just delete comments about Elvis and race?

[edit]

Elvis and race is an important and misunderstood issues in U.S. history. Why delete some context that fleshes it out a bit? And why not leave an explanation? Jbench55555!! (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe additional context is needed, I'd suggest creating a standalone child article - the main article is already very long and detailed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Please tell me which provisions of ELNO you invoked to delete my addition of a link to what I believe is the most detailed website about that game series. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Railroad_Tycoon&diff=0&oldid=1297555153

The site is maintained not by "a fan" but by a group of people who have played one or more of the games in the series and have written material that is of interest to other players though not "notable" enough to be in a Wikipedia article. The site is over 9 years old and hosted by a stable wikifarm.

Quoting WP:ELYES, #What can normally be linked

  1. .....
  2. .....
  3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

"Links to be considered" includes "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

Robin Patterson (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Quoting WP:ELNO:
"Blogs, personal web pages, and most fansites..." seems to be applicable to me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A "fansite" is by "a fan", not a group. Robin Patterson (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Says who? A "fansite" is a site "for fans". - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Says Wikipedia. Read it. Robin Patterson (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CIRC for the dangers of relying on Wikipedia for sourcing (and, by extension) of definitions. However you look at it, it's a fansite, which is how you first described it. Most fans are knowledgeable to some extent, but that doesn't make them reliable. - SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself labelled it a fansite. This is an open wiki with a very small userbase, not something that would warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not label it a fansite. It is clearly written by people who are "knowledgeable sources". "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" "can normally be linked". Can you tell me which provisions of ELNO you invoked? Robin Patterson (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree it would qualify under that provision of ELYES, and believe it would be excluded per 11/12 of ELNO. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Robin, but I agree with Nikki—ELNO #11 very clearly applies here. And yes, you called it a fan site in your edit summary. This is the sort of thing I'd expect any admin, even a legacy one, to recognize when it's been pointed out (assuming they had forgotten the guideline). Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAC help

[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria, I saw that you were recommended as one of the most prolific and experienced geography-related featured article contributors. I am working on bringing East Island (Hawaii) through the Featured Article process and was wondering if you might be willing to help mentor me or offer guidance through the candidacy. I would really appreciate any advice or feedback you could give. Thank you! MallardTV Talk to me! 15:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MallardTV, as a starting point, have you addressed the comments from the previous FAC? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Indeed I have, as was the subject of my 16-hour editathon of sorts. MallardTV Talk to me! 15:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

[edit]
Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Noleander submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Nikkimaria to be Editor of the Week for her outstanding and reliable work in the WP:Featured Article process. And so much more. For many years, they've always been there, helping out, answering questions. One of her chosen jobs is validating the images within FA-nominated articles to ensure they meet the Wikipedia:Image use policy requirements; a difficult, painstaking, and often thankless, task. FAC would fall apart without her - 4,500+ reviews!! Stop and think about that for a moment. She is second to none for knowledge of copyright, and is always generous with her time. Speaking personally: about a month ago, I prematurely nominated an article for FA, and Nikkimaria quickly and discreetly let me know it was not quite ready ... so I was able to gracefully withdraw it before any public humiliation. In sum, they've been working hard, behind the scenes providing invaluable contributions in corners of the project that would be markedly worse off without Nikkimaria's constant, seemingly-unending vigilance. Without her, Today's Featured Article on WP's front page would not be the same. This nomination was seconded by Gog the Mild, theleekycauldron, Dracophyllum, TompaDompa, Eddie891, TechnoSquirrel69, Vacant0, QuicoleJR, Abo Yemen, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz and UndercoverClassicist

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Nikkimaria
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning June 29, 2025
For many years, Nikkimaria has been in the WP:Featured Article process, helping out and answering questions. One of her chosen jobs is validating the images within FA-nominated articles to ensure they meet the Wikipedia:Image use policy requirements; a difficult, painstaking and thankless task. FAC would fall apart without her - 4,500+ reviews!! In sum, they've been working hard, behind the scenes providing invaluable contributions in corners of the project that would be markedly worse off without Nikkimaria's constant, seemingly-unending vigilance. Without her, Today's Featured Article on WP's front page would not be the same.
Recognized for
decades of service related to the improvement and creation of Canadian content
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster7 Chat 03:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! And thanks Noleander as well :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, well deserved! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red July 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | July 2025, Vol 11, Issue 7, Nos. 326, 327, 341, 342, 343


Online events:

Announcements:

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,514 articles during this period!
  • 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280 bios; 415,618 women)
  • 23 Jun 2025: 20.130% (2,072,236 bios; 417,132 women)

Tip of the month:

  • A nuanced article is more useful than a shiny pedestal. Readers can find hope in your subject's survival or achievements,
    but they can also learn from your subject's mistakes and limitations.

Other ways to participate:

--Lajmmoore (talk 09:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Have this delicious pancake!

[edit]
Pancakes!
Thanks for bringing Maple syrup to FA! I thought it would be appropriate to award you some pancakes with syrup on them to represent the fruit of your labours, unless you prefer waffles or French toast? Either way, thank you, along with being a regular contributor on FAC. I hope to see you one day on FAC. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 01:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
story · music · places
Thank you today for Maple syrup, "Introducing the syrup of Sunday mornings, the sweet topping on everything from waffles to ice cream, and the best thing to combine with snow in spring!"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for George Washington, "about the founding father George Washington", co-nomination, "the sixth time that this page has been nominated. A previous GA nomination of the article from a decade ago was successful though subsequent FAC nominations did not move forward. The current nomination is a significantly trimmed and condensed version of the Washington biography"! Quite an achievement! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for Manitoba, introduced (in 2010): "this year is Manitoba's 140th birthday! What better way to celebrate than with a great article honouring the province?"! - I have a singer on the same page, and there's a question on the talk page, regarding the wording of the sentence about her death. I'd be interested in your view, if you have the time to look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should have looked before I asked you, - what I found strange was reverted. Two other questions though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, the user was blocked. - Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 69

[edit]
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 69, May–June 2025

In this issue we highlight a new partnership, Citation Watchlist and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

[edit]

Hello. Could you please let me know which link you consider is unreliable on Robert Kerr Chisholm? 20m00 (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 20m00, it's the site I removed with this edit - see its entry at this list of sources for more details. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying! 20m00 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of images from Prajnanananda Saraswati

[edit]

Hello User:Nikkimaria,

I noticed that you recently removed all the images from the article Prajnanananda Saraswati without providing a clear edit summary or initiating any discussion on the talk page. This kind of unilateral removal of properly sourced and relevant media has a severe impact on the quality and integrity of the article, and contradicts Wikipedia’s collaborative editing principles.

If there were licensing or content-related concerns with specific images, the proper course of action would have been to raise the issue on the article’s talk page or tag the images with appropriate rationale — not to delete them outright without consensus.

Please refrain from such disruptive edits in the future. I request that you either restore the removed images or engage in discussion to justify your actions, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR.(talk) 18:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eshaan the writer, I did not remove all the images - there are still many present. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be repositories of images. Additionally {{photomontage}} should not be used outside of templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I am sorry I re edited them. Thank you for the information. Eshaan the writer (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Flag of Winnipeg fair.svg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flag of Winnipeg fair.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Rail Candidate

[edit]

The "one White, one Black" that you added is not there. The white man is Horace Greeley. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "his party," whatever that meant, to "Horace Greeley." Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC) That eliminates the need to say that one is white and one is Black.Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to be visible - it's alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: June 2025

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Knee-jerk reverting

[edit]

Please be aware that undoing all of a person's edits when you only disagree with part of them is problematic. I can only guess that you disagree with the change to the coordinates. If so, please consider where the coordinates point, and the sourcing. Your coordinates point to the legislature building of Manitoba, which, by the way, had disgracefully bad coordinates until I fixed them just now. I assume, but have not checked, that the source is a primary government database that is riddled with errors, errors that I am continuously correcting. Moreover, the article on on the city of Winnipeg, which has its own center, its own identify separate from the province. Thus I used the corner of Portage and Main, which OSM, Google Maps, and Bing Maps all agree is the center. It's rare that all three agree, so I am confident that this represents the consensus of secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abductive, I did not undo all of your edits, and in particular I did not touch your changes to the coordinates. Please actually look at the changes you're reverting, particularly before you start edit-warring over them. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes even less sense, given that all that other changes are only visible to editors (and therefore considered WP:Cosmetic), and the only substantive change I made was to the coordinates. Also, you previously did revert my attempts to improve the coordinates. I only make the other minor changes to enhance the readability of the infobox for my fellow editors, and most of the other edits are made by scripts (and I thought that they were the consensus formatting). So I fail to see why anybody would object. Personally, I want my fellow editors to be happy, so I am sorry for jumping to conclusions about your reversions. But I wonder if your happiness wouldn't be achieved through not worrying about, you know, changing |access-date= to |accessdate= ? I hope we can reach an understanding about what is important to each of us. Abductive (reasoning) 03:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Abductive, my happiness would be achieved by you not making these edits - they don't enhance readability, they don't have consensus, and all they do is, it would seem, make it harder for you to understand what changes are being made. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am really only making changes to the coordinates, so I suppose my efforts to improve the formatting are less important. Going forward, please try to remember to put in the edit summary that you aren't undoing my coordinates and I will try to not be so hasty (and discombobulated). Abductive (reasoning) 04:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - and to be fair, I used exactly the summary you did :-P Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question on cause of death

[edit]

I've noticed that on the pages for executed death row inmates, you are switching the infobox to use "Criminal status" instead of "Death cause". I guess it's confusing for me. Doesn't the fact that the person was a death row inmate who was executed for their crimes perfectly fit the criteria for the Death cause? The criteria is "Should only be included when the cause of death has significance for the subject's notability." You've also sometimes been using "disappeared status" for some of them, which doesn't make sense at all since they never went missing. Lightiggy (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightiggy, per MOS:IBP we shouldn't include executed in two separate parameters, and criminal_status is more specific for this use-case. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of ETH Zurich

[edit]

You added overly detailed to this article. Have a look at similarly high-ranked universities in the US and UK. In particular, Harvard University has a much more detailed entry. BBCLCD (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Harvard article is in need of editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Erebus disaster:

[edit]

Both edits by [4] used ChatGPT to find sources, probably need reverting? Doug Weller talk 19:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably need checking, to make sure the sources exist and actually say what they've been claimed to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2025

[edit]
Endowment tax form, Wikimania, elections, U4C, fundraising and a duck!
And how do we know?
Five-year journey comes to healthy fruition.
Wikimedians from around the world will gather in person and online at the twentieth annual meeting of Wikimania.
As well as "hermeneutic excursions" and other scientific research findings.
The report covers the Foundation's operations from July 2023 - June 2024
A step towards objective and comprehensive coverage of a project nearly too big to follow.
Drawn this century!
How data from the Wikipedia "necessary articles" lists can shed new light on the gender gap
Annual plans, external trends, infrastructure, equity, safety, and effectiveness. What does it all mean?
Rest in peace.
Wouldn't it be nice without billionaires, scandals, deaths, and wars?
If you are too blasé for Mr. Blasé and don't give a FAC.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

Would you please stop undo my recent edits. As I told you and you probably should know since you´re way longer at wikipedia than me, shortend footnotes need a date to identify them correctly. Otherwise there is no way to tell apart another author with the same name. So i ask you the last time to refrain this or i must report you. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same here. There are some certain points that had to be included as you can see here Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What information to include So please stop it or i will report you due to vandalism... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr.Lovecraft, regarding Great Fire of London, there is no requirement for shortened footnotes to include dates - the citations as-is are sufficient to identify to which References entry they refer. Similarly regarding Economy of England in the Middle Ages, each chapter citation points to a full book reference with all necessary bibliographic details, no changes required. What is required is that if you wish to change the established citation style, you first gain consensus for that on the talk page, per WP:CITEVAR - please do that rather than edit-warring. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ok we had a bad start. So lets begin anew. There is however the problem in the inline citations when there are two authors with the same name, how will the reader know which one is meant if there is no such thing as a date or something similiar to identify them correctly? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any problem right now - all of the entries in References have unique authors. If at some point in future a duplicate is added then disambiguation will be needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Garland FA Query

[edit]

Hi. On the comment you left on the FA review for Judy Garland, you suggested taking it to WP:GOCE, so what do I do to make that happen? Cheers, Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a request Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snuff bottle

[edit]

I'm reviewing this article for GA. The image licensing seems fine overall, though one lists the author as "unknown". Is there any further info on that, or anything else I may have missed? Many thanks, MSincccc (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:雍亲王题书堂深居图屏•观书沉吟轴_(cropped).jpg is missing a US tag. For the rest, all except the lead image appear to be 3D works located in places without freedom of panorama, so they all need explicit tagging for the bottles themselves, not just the photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently reviewing the article Arne Furumark for GA. I have checked the licensing, but could you please let me know if I’ve overlooked anything? I would really appreciate it. Many thanks. MSincccc (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically File:Amphoroid_krater_with_chariot_scene,_1300-1250_BC,_AM_of_Nafplio,_202188.jpg and File:Horses_manger_Louvre_A513.jpg should both include tags for the original work - should be straightforward as both are well out of copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aosta / Aoste

[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you added the pronunciation of Aosta as a footnote, while in this article it's stated explicitly. Could I ask why you chose this format? Also, by placing it in a footnote, the French co-official name of the city (Aoste) is no longer visible in the lead section, even though it should be present there. Thanks in advance for your reply! Simoncik84 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Simoncik84: per MOS:LEADPRON "It is preferable to move pronunciation guides to a footnote or elsewhere in the article if they would otherwise clutter the first sentence". Given the number of different pronunciations involved here that seems appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the explanation. What about the French official name? Does it need to go in the footnote too? Simoncik84 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That one could go either way, IMO. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just comparing Aosta with Bolzano, and I think we need a clearer decision from Wikipedia on whether to put official names in a footnote, as the link you provided specifically addresses pronunciation. For now, I'll leave the official toponyms in the intro and the pronunciations in the footnote. Simoncik84 (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Abraham Lincoln

[edit]
Congratulations, Nikkimaria! The article you nominated, Abraham Lincoln, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Human Behavior

[edit]

Hey! I am going through and condensing some of the wording. I kinda have been building the page up with things I felt where missing nobody has responded to the talk page yet, and am looking for some pointers if you could. I did review the too long article/article on shortening etc, and am gonna think of ways to shorten this but theres still quite a bit missing from the article with it being human behavior, how could I continue to add stuff without making it too long or hard to navigate? I was using sub headings/headings to categorize but I can see how it can become too much. I appreciate any help thank you!! Eloquentverse (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eloquentverse, what I'd suggest is using this article as a high-level overview of the various subtopics, and defer details about those topics to their dedicated articles - see WP:DETAIL. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha - I will look at it at a high-level and see how I can gut this. I appreciate your help seriously Eloquentverse (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I gutted a lot out of it and took apart everything I added, let me know if this looks better. I kept the most important stuff Eloquentverse (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Million Award for Abraham Lincoln

[edit]
The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Abraham Lincoln (estimated annual readership: 5,200,000) to featured article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — ImaginesTigers 11:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A towering achievement, Nikki. Thank you for this monumental undertaking of a vital article. I've added this to the FA Hall of Fame. — ImaginesTigers 11:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 231, July 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

[edit]

Well that's a disappointing outcome....have a closer with less than 400 main space edits siding with two editors that didn't point to a single policy. For god sakes the closer thinks the Canadian flag is copyrighted like the coat of arms.... they are unaware of the differences in the legal framework surrounding the copyrights. RFCs open to random editors unfamiliar with the basics of topics has been a detriment overall for our community. I remember a time when there was only a few rfcs a week..... Nowadays we see a few rfcs an hour. Moxy🍁 02:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Coleisforeditor#Canada. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm surprised we didn't attract more RFC hoppers with random I like it votes. But still the outcome would be the same as I stated months ago...an RRC would probably result in us misleading our readers and or ignoring Canadian copyright laws.... that's not surprising. Moxy🍁 02:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | August 2025, Vol 11, Issue 8, Nos. 326, 327, 344, 345, 346


Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Britten

[edit]

Hi. Did you have a reason for deciding that the title of the piece by Britten was not needed? I believe that when a piece is referred to as explicitly as a "final tenor and piano cycle a quarter of a century later," it ought to be identified. You may feel otherwise, but unless you have a reason beyond a difference in taste, I think that we editors ought, as a courtesy, to respect one another's minor edits. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that edit as minor, but I have reworked the sentence to avoid the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, deleting the reference to the tenor and piano cycle certainly removes the need to identify it. I found the reference of interest, and, as a Britten fan, I'd like to know what work it refers to.
I've just figured it out. A quarter of a century after The Holy Sonnets of John Donne would be 1970, and List of compositions by Benjamin Britten indicates that, in 1969, Britten published Who Are These Children?, a song cycle for tenor and piano. No subsequent one is listed, so that has to be it.
Would you object if I put back "final tenor and piano cycle a quarter of a century later," and, instead of saying that the title is needed, state that it is Who Are These Children?? Actually, I can think of a reason to object, which is that the comparative bleakness of The Holy Sonnets of John Donne and Who Are These Children? is not supported by a scholarly opinion. If that was your reason for removing the assessment of their comparative bleakness, then that would not be minor. But, if it remained, then my edit of asking for the name of the latter piece still seems minor to me. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can say that with certainty without source support, no. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Britney Spears § GA plans

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Britney Spears § GA plans. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba

[edit]

I can see you are a user that has a pattern of removing various contributors' editions while being either unwilling to or unable to explain your reasoning for them. I suggest you try to be a more collaborative editor and to actually rework passage you don't like. Erasing contributions constantly, especially with no true reasoning, is not productive to Wikipedia's mission of letting anyone contribute to a freely accessible encyclopedia. Safyrr 16:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Safyrr, I did make an effort to rework your passage, but you reverted that effort - that doesn't seem to contribute to being collaborative. I'll restore the last stable revision and invite you to provide your reasoning on article talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying concerns on South Padre Island, Texas

[edit]

I’ve been working on expanding and improving both the South Padre Island and South Padre Island, Texas articles with additional sources and various facts and details. I noticed that the South Padre Island, Texas article was recently tagged as containing promotional content.

To help bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia’s standards, could you let me know which sections or phrasing you believe are too promotional? I’d be happy to revise or remove anything that crosses the line. I think I see some of the edits you've already made and understand the general concern, but I’d appreciate your perspective directly.

Thanks in advance for your input. I’ve really enjoyed researching the island and learning about its fascinating history, obscure details, and natural environment. One of the most interesting discoveries was the Karankawa people, who inhabited the island prior to modern history. 162.198.97.65 (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the Industry and Recreation sections are particularly problematic, but in general much of the article reads like a tourism brochure. I think the problem is not just the phrasing but also the sourcing - there's a lot of citations to recreation providers (eg tour operators) and other sources with an interest in promoting tourism. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, especially regarding the “Recreation” section. I think removing it entirely is a good start. It doesn’t offer much in the way of encyclopedic value, just a list of past events and content that reads more like promotion. I’ll also clean up the “Industry” section to ensure it’s more neutral and better sourced. I appreciate your input. I wouldn’t have noticed this without the additional perspective eh?. 162.198.97.65 (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads-up. I’ve created this account (Surface Interval) so I can contribute with a consistent identity instead of editing anonymously. Looking forward to continuing the work on this article with more clarity around contributions.
Surface Interval (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! I've left you a welcome message. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Watson Taylor

[edit]

I hope that you won't mind this request for help. I noticed that you edited the article for the above, about which of course I don't have any problem whatsover. My request relates to a bot that has appeared following two recent edits of mine about, if I've understood it correctly, an unreliable external link. My request relates to how I can prevent future appearances of the bot by removing the problematic link. Unfortunately, I don't know the identity of the link to which the bot refers. My guess is that it is the pdf 'Growing up with anarchist, surrealists and pataphysicians.' However I can't be certain. The link is uniquely informative. Consequently if I am unable to cite it, then that would raise multiple needs for 'Citation needed' comments, like the one that already exists which I hope to be able to delete. I hope that I have explained myself sufficiently clearly. John Desmond (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @John Desmond: the only bot edit I see on that article recently is this one. Are you by chance referring to the tag that appears after your edit in the edit history? It refers to a source that is deprecated, which in this case is the one that I removed, not the PDF you mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your very prompt reponse to my request for help and for having previously deleted the offending source. As you will see, I have undertaken a substantial edit of the article. However, upon submitting the edit (to safeguard myself against a loss of Internet access), a bot edit was displayed, just like the previous one. Naturally, I hope that I haven't inadvertently replicated the offending source! Or pehaps a removal of a bot edit isn't instantaneous but is subject to a time lag. Regardless, once again, I should be extremely grateful for your help. John Desmond (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @John Desmond: you did indeed replicate the source, which I've removed. For reference, the page on deprecated sources has a list of which sources those are. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria: Thank you very much again. I've read the page on deprecated sources, which was an extremely instructive experience. Thank you, John Desmond (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Followers and supporters of William Walker's filibustering in Nicaragua for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Followers and supporters of William Walker's filibustering in Nicaragua is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Followers and supporters of William Walker's filibustering in Nicaragua until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sam Walton (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, Sam, don't tell them to put it back in Walker's article ! Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 August 2025

[edit]
Plus a mysterious CheckUser incident, and the news with Wikinews.
A review of June, July and August.
Who is this guy?
Threads since June.
And slop.
It's not a conlang, it's a crossword puzzle.
gang aft agley, an' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, for promis'd joy!
Everybody's Somebody's Fool.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder in the infobox?

[edit]

Should we even use the placeholder in the first place for Canada? There may not be a rule against placing it there, but still. It still seems like a good idea to add a placeholder for the aforementioned reasonings of having an explanation as to why it's not shown in the infobox, and keeping the link to the coat of arms within the infobox so people can still go and see it in it's own dedicated article easily.

Infact, given more time, I started to realise, that even if it is decided that the free coat of arms should not be shown, it may still be a good idea to have that placeholder for the same reasons as right now.

But, given your two reverts (and a third from Moxy [and also any more would go over three reverts]), should the placeholder image really should be used? Or is there some type of way to avoid doing this, whilst providing the same, or more convienence as a placeholder image within the infobox would? kxeon  talk 23:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any benefit to including it. The purpose of the template is to provide key facts about the subject, not meta-information about editorial processes. The copyright status of the image is not key information about Canada. The link can be added without having any image, in multiple ways. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article re John Creagh

[edit]

Good morning

I am beginner at this game so please excuse me if I have breached some rule or etiquette.

I edited an article yesterday on Father John Creagh for my first ever time and you seem to have removed the reference to his grave. Is there any particular reason for this ? I hope the weather is nice where you are.

Best wishes Irishmaninuk (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irishmaninuk, the reference you provided is not considered reliable - see its entry here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you for help on draft:shelbymackay. Any help you can provide going forward is a fantastic treat as a fan. Kindest regards Jacquelinelove (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2025

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Draft article

[edit]

Hello @Nikkimaria, I would like to contact and need help to you since my draft created that my submitted request was declined by an editor for reasons. But I am confident and potential in its notability, since other articles, such as Zaheer, are considered notable, I have. I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and let me know if there's anything I should fix. Thank you! AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 14:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that the best way to demonstrate the character warrants a standalone article would be to identify additional secondary sources that provide in-depth discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kent State shootings

[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria - can you explain why you removed the wikilink to Kent, Ohio in the infobox? I'm one of the lead editors of the article and I can tell you that this has been wikilinked as such for years in this way, I believe accurately. You cite MOS:IMGSIZE and MOS:LINK but neither one seems relevant - the link correctly identifies the town where the event took place which is not said explicitly elsewhere, and it has nothing to do with image size. What am I missing here? Tvoz/talk 04:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tvoz, MOS:LINK indicates that we should avoid having two links next to each other like that - instead keep the more specific link, which in this case is the university. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - ok, I pinpointed that the location parameter was edited to include the university name in 2017 - no one has objected to the links since then as far as I recall, but if you feel strongly that the adjacent links in the infobox are problematic, I'll go along with your edit there. But I think I'll add "in Kent, Ohio" to the intro graf to clarify the location which might not be obvious to non-US readers. Does that work for you? Tvoz/talk 04:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good Tvoz/talk 22:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Schwarz (sinologist)

[edit]

Thank you for the critical review of the article. I have made and supplemented some details - see also the 'talk' section for that. I hope it can be understood better now.

Many greetings Sogratis (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article would benefit from additional reliable sourcing to support the points being made. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be that most sources for the article are in German? (Even though German is still the number 1 mother tongue in Europe ... - whether the Germans themselves know that?) I have now added the Memorial Book of the University of Vienna to the sources, but unfortunately, only the German version is recommended here. Also some other "further readings". The publisher that had announced his autobiography is insolvent; the manuscript is in private hands. (I myself have an excerpt of a radio recording.) The various information in the literature from Konrad Herrmann is very reliable, similar to that of Knut Walf. Wang Zhimin is important as a witness to the times, but sometimes a little bit inaccurate. (It is understandable that the many detailed evidence regarding the family members, which were actually available in English, were deleted. However, the family history - especially in the international historical context of the first half of the 20th century - held a special, formative significance for him. A very hopeful, then strongly traumatized generation, people who have been spread all over the world.) The Wikipedia version that I found, essentially dating from 2016, contained some errors and gaps, that's why I wanted to improve and add a little here. Sogratis (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
German sources are allowed - see WP:NONENG. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So please read the "further readings". I have tried to provide a few pieces of information that are not included there. (The differing changes regarding the family members - compared to the original 2016 Wikipedia version - can be found in the footnotes you have deleted.) It is not always easy to verify everything one finds on the internet ... ;) Sogratis (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Eyen

[edit]

I know Find-a-grave is not considered a reliable source, but I thought it could be used for information that appears in the photos of tombstones, etc. on the site, which are primary sources that ought to be sufficient to verify background info, like people's birth and death dates. Is the argument that the tombstone might be fraudulent? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily fraudulent, although they can be erroneous, but also: how do you know the person mentioned is the same person who is relevant to this article? AFAICS the father isn't named in the NYT ref at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This NYT article says that Tom "and his identical twin brother, Jerome, were born in Cairo, Egypt, to Syrian par ents from Omaha, Nebraska, who were vacationing in the Middle East. Tom's father, Abraham, who died when the twins were 7, was in the restaurant business. Tom grew up in Cambridge, Ohio, in a family of five brothers (four of them twins) and two sisters." I've revised the article to reflect this and the NYT obit. I can't prove that the graves shown on Find-a-Grave are those of his parents, but the nephew who posted the info says that Tom Eyen's grave is next to his parents' graves. What would be necessary to verify it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem you're going to run into is the need to analyze or synthesize in order to make that connection. Your better bet is to find secondary sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill

[edit]

Hello @Nikkimaria, you deleted a few sentances that I aded to the entry on Winston Churchill saying there was "overdetail". But the subject they addressed was his views and actions regarding European unity, which are still of considerable interest on the continent. His role was such that one of the main buildings of the European Parliament in Strasbourg is named after him. I think his significance here warrants the few sentances I added, which were all duly referenced. Best regards, FriendNot Foe (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the article talk page, I think the more specific subarticle is the best place to discuss that issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Eagle sourcing

[edit]

There seems to a problem with your edit of the article covering HMS Eagle - Wikipedia. Two edits had been made. The first cited the original manga as the source. This was good enough for the fictional ships mentioned on USS Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia and HMS Leviathan - Wikipedia. The second edit provided a link to a dedicated wiki article about the fictional ship. I can understand if you consider another wiki to be an unstrustworthy source. But what I can't understand is why you undid both edits. Please respond as soon as possible and have a nice day. User:RC-0407 - Wikipedia 19/08/2025 (CET 12:12) RC-0407 (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable secondary sourcing that indicates the significance of the fictional reference - see MOS:IPC. If there are other articles that also lack that, suggest that be addressed at those articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 232, August 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Content, rather than improving source

[edit]

I recently updated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_the_Rock to find that you had reverted my change citing unreliable source. Can I suggest that you look to improve the source rather than remove relevant content? I have since found a further 4 sources which I have included.

In the history there is actually a previously included "in popular culture" section, which is actually incredibly interesting and insightful. This sort of thing shouldn't be removed from articles in my opinion, it is relevant knowledge.

It should probably be restored, with improved citations.

The section was removed in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_the_Rock&oldid=1211612164 And was last present in this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stop_the_Rock&oldid=1209608934 CJAddams (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) CJAddams, please see WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It's up to you to use a reliable source, not rely on others to dig around trying to find it. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, in-popular-culture content in particular needs secondary sourcing to indicate its significance - primary sourcing doesn't accomplish that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone making any change, is an editor. Removing content should be done with care, not with a blow torch. CJAddams (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Parker

[edit]

I have a question, i have continually added a new section to the article i wrote, harvey parker for it to always be removed. His death and parents.

It's sourced straight from newspapers and death certificate. While they arent the literal 160+ year old documents. Im not what other sources could appease you. They are literal newspapers and this is preventing me from completing the article. This is quite annoying to deal withWrestlestorian (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise looking for reliable, secondary sourcing supporting the details you wish to add. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red September 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | September 2025, Vol 11, Issue 9, Nos. 326, 327, 347, 348, 349
Recognized as the most active, topic-based WikiProject by human changes.


Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the Month:

  • Researching historical women writers who used pseudonyms requires careful investigation across multiple sources, as many women adopted pen names to avoid gender bias and judgment (e.g., being labeled a bluestocking) and, ultimately, to get published.

Progress ("moving the needle"):

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Mazz

[edit]

Hello, I ask that you stop reverting my additions to Mazz. You have suggested that I create separate articles for the individuals I am writing about, the foremost and founding members of Mazz, but I do not find that there is enough biographical information about them to constitute separate articles. I am also writing on their own formations of Mazz following the original group's 1998 disbanding but those do not really have separate histories and are more so outgrowths of the original group, and it is fitting to keep all of their information under one blanket article, Mazz. Also, most fans of Mazz are not even aware of its later iterations and simply refer to them all as "Mazz," especially because they all kept a similar sound. I suppose, lastly, the details I have written regarding Jimmy González's death and Joe López's incarceration are not completely relevant to the band(s), but they do mark key events in those bands histories and I think should not be moved to a separate article because then that is all the person's article would consist of, because as I have mentioned above those individuals lack other biographical information. As for the infoboxes I have added, those are not necessary, were placed only to spruce up the page and add some "graphic" elements, and can be removed if that matters to you so. Zach12211 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zach12211, if you don't feel standalone articles on these individuals is warranted, they should definitely be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What should definitely be removed? The information I have written about them? I do not imagine separate articles for them as appealing because they are only known for being the founders of Mazz, fronting Mazz for 20 years, and then breaking up and continuing careers in bands with the name Mazz, one to win multiple Grammy's and the other to release a few albums, go to prison, and then be released and create another band with the name Mazz. Publicly they are heavily attached to the name Mazz and not too much else about them is known, at least not enough to create a good biography about them. The information I have written though is entirely relevant to Mazz and its fans (i.e. people who will be reading the page or look for it). Zach12211 (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is, if you don't think standalone biographies are warranted, then don't create them within the article - just summarize the information relevant to their careers. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I structured the article as follows: before Mazz, Mazz, their separation, and then two sections for Jimmy and Joe's careers as leaders of other "Mazz" bands succeeding the original Mazz. For Jimmy I planned to write on his succeeding band and then his health and death, which are relevant because it marked the end of his band and career. For Joe I wrote about his succeeding band, his solo tenure at Freddie Records, then his incarceration, which is relevant because he could not make music and it also concerned other aspects of both the men's bands, and then I planned to write on his new band after his release, Joe López y Grupo Mazz. In what way did I inadvertently create standalone biographies? Zach12211 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of weight - see WP:BIO1E. Health, death, and incarceration are all developments that warrant a sentence or two, not multiple paragraphs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, OK. In that case I will have to decide on whether to shorten the info and keep it in Mazz or start a separate article. If I do shorten those portions, however, will you allow me to add back my previous additions regarding the descendent bands? Zach12211 (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just regarding the bands, sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Zach12211 (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like having an opinion

[edit]

Please join Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#WP:BLPIMAGE,_again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza genocide scholar opinion poll statistics

[edit]

Hello.

I consider it extremely important to publicly highlight the most recent comprehensive opinion poll of scholars who are experts in the area rather than only an outdated poll from 1.5 years ago as currently, and given that you removed and then reverted this crucial data as in your opinion overdetail, I ask that the information is restored.

I extremely strongly disagree with your rationale of "overdetail" in this case, as this is likely the most important scholarly statistics survey available in the page, and it should remain in order to publicly illustrate the drastically growing consensus from expert scholars regarding that a genocide is taking place, or at the very least the most recent results should be highlighted instead of the 1.5 years outdated ones. David A (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a post here regarding this issue. David A (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the talk page; let's keep discussion centralized there. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wanli Emperor

[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria, thank you for shortening the Wanli Emperor article. I also thot it was quite long, but I didn't know where to start, so I just rewrote it, omitting some sections from the beginning. Thank you again. Min968 (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria Regarding the length of the article, I'm not sure if the article on Sejong the Great is suitable or if it should also be shortened. The writer's reason is, "this is one of the most major people in korean history. i think could possibly be shortened here and there, but overall the length is justified for topic of this stature." Min968 (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Sejong article is currently 9300 words of prose, while the Wanli page is over 16,000. I'd concur with the sentiment that the former could possibly be shortened, but I'd consider the latter a priority. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria The current article on the Wanli Emperor seems to have been significantly shortened already, so there's no need to shorten it further. As for the Economy of the Ming dynasty article, I'm rewriting it, so there's no need to move the content there. Min968 (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Min968, the article is still longer than it should be, and still contains content that is better placed elsewhere. Why not incorporate that material into your rewrite of Economy? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 September 2025

[edit]
UK Online Safety Act remains undefeated.
Plus Wiki rules, Wiki Spin, and physicists get street cred!
The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.
And other new research findings.
Tis true: there's magic in the web of it.
With the usual mix of war, death, super heroes, a belt, and Wednesday.
It's an easy one.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln's Mexican War quote

[edit]

Why do you object to my providing readers with a link to the full speech that the quotation is from? Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC) In my experience as an editor (not just of Wikipedia), I have discovered that most quotations of more than a few words have errors, if only a missing comma or the like. On Wikipedia, I sometimes check quotations for errors, and it's handy if a link is present. Plus, my link was a footnote, so it didn't increase the length of the article.Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked it and corrected it, so it should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested that links to full speeches (or other texts) are handy to enable checking. But I wasn't applying that to this case, because I'd already checked the quotation in this case. Other reasons also exist for links, notably that readers might want to read the quotation in context. I know that you like to trim articles, and that's good, but I see no reason to remove footnotes with links to texts that are quoted. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really the purpose of citations, though. It'd be better to post the speech to Wikisource, if it isn't there already. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: August 2025

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William F. Raynolds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joseph Reynolds.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

[edit]

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for removing entry

[edit]

Dear Editor, I have been trying to add resources on the page for James Joyce. Some of them were removed instantly. I realize that Wikipedia discourages Blogspot links but do not understand what is wrong particularly with the page "alphybetty", which gives an extensive collection of Joyce's handwritten alphabet letters (https://joycebricolage.blogspot.com/p/alphybetty.html). Thank you for your work and best wishes. 2601:98A:4000:1E30:583A:9703:55FE:6C85 (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, because Wikipedia is not a link directory, an extensive list of of external links should be avoided, and the list there is already lengthy. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Thank you for your prompt reply. I have replaced one entry, since it was not leading anywhere and the link was broken. The number of external links has remained the same. I hope this is OK. 2601:98A:4000:1E30:3DE4:96A8:38B:FAEB (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editor,
I have noticed that my edit from a few minutes ago was reversed. It read:
  • [5] (a collection of Joyce's alphabet-letters as found in his correspondence and manuscripts. It is meant as a reference tool to provide images of how any particular letter may look when Joyce writes it.)
May I suggest that it be restored?
Reason: At least two of the current entries do not seem relevant for readers and researchers anymore.
(1) The following entry is outdated (Wayback Machine) and it has nothing to do with the National Library Of Ireland (under which it is listed now):
Hans E. Jahnke Bequest at the Zurich James Joyce Foundation online at the National Library Of Ireland, 2014 Archived 17 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine
(2) The following entry is outdated:
James Joyce from Dublin to Ithaca Exhibition from the collections of Cornell University
Thank for your understanding. 2601:98A:4000:1E30:3DE4:96A8:38B:FAEB (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor removed that link, so I'd suggest taking this over to the article's talk page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. 2601:98A:4000:1E30:3DE4:96A8:38B:FAEB (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave being non RS

[edit]

Hi, there. I noticed that twice you removed Michelle Trachtenberg's link from Find a Grave regarding her burial plans. May I ask why this source cannot be used on Wikipedia, and why is it considered "non-reliable"? BradfordNewton (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BradfordNewton, user-generated sources are considered generally unreliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I won't add it in again. BradfordNewton (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 70

[edit]
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025
  • New collections:
    • Times of Malta
    • Africa Intelligence
    • Intelligence Online
    • La Lettre
    • Glitz
  • Spotlight: Wikimania
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent to User:Nikkimaria and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Regarding .44 Magnum

[edit]

Hi, I would to know why the edit in .44 Magnum is reversed and give me constructive feedback on how is the edit improper. 98.5.242.201 (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the source provided was not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Noether / Bavaria

[edit]

Hello. You edited the Emmy Noether article to remove the infobox's link to her birthplace, the Kingdom of Bavaria, leaving "Bavaria" unlinked. But Bavaria is not the Kingdom of Bavaria, so you've made the article ambiguous. You didn't explain your edit. Please explain it to justify the effect it has on the article. DocRuby (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DocRuby, see MOS:LINK - if you want to specify Kingdom of Bavaria, that should be displayed rather than having the reader chase links. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I edited it back to Kingdom of Bavaria, linked to its article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocRuby (talk • contribs) 11:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expert advice sought

[edit]

Greetings! Do you think this image would be OK to upload under PD-simple? Grateful for your thoughts. Tim riley talk 16:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, you're referring to the black box with text? That's definitely too simple to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you very much. Tim riley talk 06:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birth / death dates

[edit]

I've seen several edits like this from you recently: Jacques Offenbach: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

What's the rule for when to present dates?

Thanks, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, not outside the lead unless there is special relevance. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 233, September 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

[edit]

Hi Nikki. I have two image questions for you here if you don't mind: see: Talk:Freedman's_Village#GA_review. MisawaSakura (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth

[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria, you don’t think the signature looked better centered before? It kind of looks off and crammed to the side now. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks centred to me? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, really? That’s so strange. Maybe because I am on my mobile phone? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks centred to me on mobile view also, but there could be some variations depending on specific devices/settings. Maybe an issue for WP:VPT? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Thanks, I will ask and see what they think. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10

[edit]
Women in Red | October 2025, Vol 11, Issue 10, Nos. 326, 327, 350, 351, 352
Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.


Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the Month:

  • Notable does not always mean admirable; you don't have to like an article's subject to make the article a useful contribution to Wikipedia.

Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever.
Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 6,283 articles during this period:

  • 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280; 415,618 women)
  • 24 September 2025: 20.20% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,088,533 biographies; 421,901 women)

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

John Flannagan & Module Person Date

[edit]

So you have twice reverted my fix to John Flannagan (Medal of Honor). I want to point out a few things.

  1. Right now the page is broken and displaying an error message. Whether or not Module:Person date is functioning correctly I think we can both agree that having a huge red error message displayed is no ideal.
  2. Module:Person date is now live on over 828,000 pages. This is the only page where there has been an issue and you are the only person who has objected to how it works and what it is doing.
  3. There are at least 150 pages currently using {{Infobox military person}} with |death_date=Unknown.
  4. There are another 260+ pages using {{Infobox person}} with |death_date=Unknown. I won’t provide stats for all the people and person infobox tempaltes but you are of course welcome to do your own searches. Note that this JUST looks at |death_date=. There are tons more with |birth_date=Unknown. Full disclosure some of those are from me, but NOT all of them. There are far too many.
  5. This code went through a lengthy review process with multiple experienced editors helping to flush out problems. This includes Jonesey95 & WOSlinker amoung others.
  6. The death date of John Flannagan (Medal of Honor) IS Unknown. I fail to see what is wrong with saying so in the Infobox? Another interesting search would be how many pages are using a |death_date=approx. some_year or |death_date=c. some_year.

If you have issues with Module:Person date, which I 100% admit is NOT perfect (though I would argue the benefits outweigh the problems), or have suggestions for improvements, I encourage you to start a discussion at Module talk:Person date. I won’t speak for others, but I for one am certainly open to suggestions to improve code and to learn new ideas and approaches.

At least for now, let’s solve the issue of the error message on John Flannagan (Medal of Honor) by setting |death_date=Unknown. If down the line a change is made whereby that is not required, I have zero problems with or objections to removing it!

Hope we can agree on this solution. - Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you really don't want "unknown" in the infobox for some reason, {{birth year}} keeps the display the same while removing the error message. I have added it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jonesey95, that's much better. Zackmann: the page wasn't broken, the template was. Please fix the template instead of making mass changes like that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 October 2025

[edit]
This time "not merely negative".
Wickedpedia wrangles post-truth politics.
Unexpected news!
Fifty hot topics from fourteen noticeboards.
Policy, politics, icons, captchas, and LLMs.
And other recent publications.
When to walk away.
Rest in peace.
Celebrities, deaths and software.
All invited!
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

presenters removed

[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why you removed those presenters i added. They were all presenters for 2JJJ and/or 2jj during that period Tickles1964 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can i add them just ad is, as there are no internal wiki links for these presenters. I notice, Mark Dodshon is listed and doesnt have a link Tickles1964 (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that those individuals are notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you can't be serious. Then you know very little with all due respect about the past presenters. let me fill you in and add some history for you...
Some of those like Gayle Austin and Holger Brockmann were there at the inception of 2JJ and are mentioned also in the main text, amongst others i listed in the 2JJJ main page. I am at a loss to know why they would be deleted in 'past presenters' Holger even was the first presenter when it was 2JJ back in 1975. ie the first voice to announce. look it up...
Also, whilst usually someone 'notable' has a wiki page about them (I assume you deleted as the ones i added didn't have their own wiki page), it does happen. The fact someone was interested and wanted to create a page about someone or subject doesn't necessarily make it 'notable'. There are dozens of links to Gayle Austin and Holger Brockmann that you can easily look up. They should have their own wiki page, but I am not going to write one. Im any event, having no wiki page exclusively about them, in no way takes away from the significance they played at 2JJ/2JJJ and in being mentioned as 'past presenters' Tickles1964 (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i woule ask you to do some research on said presenters. They were in fact more 'notable' by most objective standards than many listed in the list. Go back to the main 2JJJ page andresd it and those names will come up a number of times describing the important and in some cases groundbreaking impact they had on the station. Beggars belief that you would dismiss these two presenters (with a casual remark 'they don't appear to be notable') who basically were at the forefront of 2JJ and JJJ. Their legacy is clear to anyone who knows a little about the station and listened to it in the past and/or who actually has researched the station and its history. I hope you can re read the main article on 2JJJ and also google those two names. There is a ton of info about them. The ABC has lots as well, as Holger went on to work at Radio National. Tickles1964 (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a start for you...
  • MILESAGO - Double Jay: The First Year*
This article dives into the groundbreaking early days of Double Jay, including how Holger Brockmann kicked it all off as the first DJ on air in 1975, and how Gayle Austin broke barriers as the first female announcer in Australian pop radio. It’s a treasure trove of behind-the-scenes stories about their impact. ¹
2. *Sydney Morning Herald - "Off the Dial" by Gayle Austin*
Written by Gayle herself, this piece reflects on her journey and the challenges she faced as the first woman on Australian pop radio. It’s a personal and powerful account of her legacy. ¹
3. *Wikipedia - Triple J*
The Triple J page gives a great overview of the station’s history, including its radical beginnings with Holger and Gayle at the forefront. It highlights how they helped redefine Australian radio with their bold moves and focus on alternative music. ²
4. *RadioInfo Australia - Gayle Austin Feature*
This article celebrates the 50th anniversary of Double Jay and shines a light on the contributions of its pioneering staff, including Gayle and Holger. ³
5. *Rebellious Radio: Double Jay Turns 50*
A retrospective on the station’s rebellious beginnings, including how Holger opened the first-ever broadcast with Skyhooks’ banned song, “You Just Like Me ’Cos I’m Good in Bed.” It’s a cool read about their fearless approach to radio. ⁴ Tickles1964 (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s a list of links that highlight the legacy of Holger Brockmann and Gayle Austin, as well as Double Jay’s groundbreaking history:
1. https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/50-candles-2jj-radioinfo-australia/
This article celebrates the 50th anniversary of Double Jay and dives into its history, featuring key figures like Holger and Gayle. ¹
2. https://fandom.com/wiki/Triple_J_Australia/
A deep dive into the origins of Triple J, including the first broadcast with Holger Brockmann and Gayle Austin’s pivotal role as the first female DJ on Australian pop radio. ²
3. https://www.milesago.com/radio/double-jay-first-year/
This site focuses on Double Jay’s rebellious beginnings, including Holger’s iconic first broadcast and Gayle’s trailblazing work. ³
4. https://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/gayle-austin-radioinfo-australia/
A feature on Gayle Austin’s achievements and her journey in shaping Australian radio. ⁴
5. https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/50th-anniversary-celebration/
A nostalgic look back at the station’s bold early days, including Holger Brockmann’s memorable launch with Skyhooks’ banned track. ⁵
6. https://www.smh.com.au/doublejay-50th-anniversary/
This article highlights the fearless spirit of Double Jay, with shoutouts to Holger and Gayle’s contributions to its legacy. ⁶ Tickles1964 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And a summary of the two. Yeah, somehow I think they're notable. If this doesn't convince you, what would?
1. *Holger Brockmann*
- Holger was the very first presenter to hit the airwaves on Double Jay on January 19, 1975, kicking things off with the banned Skyhooks track _“You Just Like Me 'Cos I’m Good in Bed”_. That was a mic-drop moment, setting the tone for Double Jay’s rebellious, no-holds-barred approach to radio.
- Before Double Jay, Holger had to use the pseudonym _Bill Drake_ at 2SM because his German-sounding name was deemed “too foreign” for commercial radio. At Double Jay, he reclaimed his real name, making it a statement on inclusivity and individuality. ¹ ² ³
2. *Gayle Austin*
- Gayle was Australia’s _first-ever female pop radio DJ_. She broke into the male-dominated industry despite facing criticism, like listeners questioning what a woman could possibly know about music (ugh, right?). But she smashed those stereotypes, becoming a trailblazer for women in Australian radio.
- She played a huge role in diversifying the music scene on air, emphasizing non-commercial and alternative tracks that were often ignored by mainstream stations. Plus, she’s been vocal about her experiences and the importance of representation, even publishing a piece in the _Sydney Morning Herald_ about her journey. ¹ ⁴ ⁵
3. *Their Shared Legacy*
- Together, Holger and Gayle were part of a groundbreaking team that redefined Australian radio. Double Jay was all about breaking the rules, from playing banned tracks to giving youth a voice and providing a platform for underrepresented artists and genres like punk, reggae, and indie music.
- They were fearless, even when facing backlash from listeners and media. Holger’s iconic “Wow, and we’re away!” and Gayle’s late-night shifts as the first woman DJ are the stuff of legend. ¹ ⁶ ³
These two didn’t just work in radio; they shaped it. Tickles1964 (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, it says 'Past Presenters' not 'Past (notable) Presenters'. Regardless, Holger Brockmann and Gayle Austin were indeed notable presenters irrespective of the heading. Please refer to sources outside of wiki, online and ones i have provided. Tickles1964 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest citing those sources in an article, rather than on my talkpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i merely showed you why they are notable presenters and deserve to be listed in 'Past Presenters'. I will now add them to the list. If you have still have an issue with that please lay out the evidence to support why they still should not be in the list. They would be no justification for you to delete them again, based on my posts ane substantialevidence. I am sure others will back it up, as I have also posted my concerns of your wanton deletions of key presenters on the 2JJJ page. Have a nice day and hope you can have the humility to admit your error. Enjoy reading about tje history of 2JJJ amd its presenters. You certainly have no reason now not to. Cheers. Tickles1964 (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image on Gros Jean

[edit]

Apologies for my (sort of creepy) drawing that I put on the Gros Jean page, it was more of a placeholder before I can find a better portrait (as there are a few). Just wanted to clarify this. Thanks KeyolTranslater (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Russian engine photos

[edit]

I'm reviewing the RBVZ-6 article and am having some issues with the images used in it. File:Ilya Muromets RBVZ-6.png, File:RBVZ-6 NDE.png and File:RBVZ-6.png all use the PD-RusEmpire tag which demands the publishing history to determine their copyright status. One of them appears to have been a factory photo, but the other two have no source info other than that they were copied from a 2022 book. They're all dated to 1915, which means that the US 120-year rule for unpublished photos with anonymous photographers remains in effect, right? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't be able to use both that RusEmpire tag and also a US unpublished tag - either they were published before 1917 or they weren't. Or have I misunderstood? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't even thought about that! That would be rather contradictory.
Talk:RBVZ-6/GA1 the uploading editor has suggested a combination of PD-Belarus and PD-US, but I don't think that that would work either. The RusEmpire tag states that a country of origin cannot be assigned since the Soviet Union was not the legal successor to the Russian Empire. PD-Belarus gives creation+50 protection for anonymous works, but the US anonymous unpublished rule would mean that its still in copyright until 2035. Can we use PD-Belarus plus PD-1996?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PD-1996 relies on them having been published at some point before 2022, depending on specifics. If the 2022 book is the first known publication, that wouldn't work. Does that book have any info on an earlier pub? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earliest publication known is 1987, according to the uploader.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So assuming that publication was in Belarus, that tag combo should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that publication was in the US.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did it have a copyright notice or a copyright registration? Do we know when (if ever) it was published in Belarus/Russia? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 1987 book says that File:RBVZ-6.png is courtesy of the National Air and Space Museum. That feels like it ought to change something. The other two are from the Russian 2022 book and lack any sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May or may not - if they have the copyright it would be PD, but being sourced from them doesn't guarantee that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has discovered that the book was first published in 1930 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. So maybe PD-Serbia and PD-1996?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1930 would be PD-Yugoslavia instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch, Nikki!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: September 2025

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Canadian Indian residential school system

[edit]

Hi, I think an infobox is helpful to summarize the dates and deaths resulting from the system, especially because denialism is increasing. Is there an infobox other than [[Template:Infobox_civilian_attack]] that you think would be more appropriate? Vagary (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of one, and I don't think such a thing would do anything to combat denialism, unfortunately. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some improvements on Iran's page needed

[edit]

Hey Nikkimaria! Hope you’re doing well. I was reviewing the article on Iran and noticed a few areas that could benefit from minor adjustments. I’d really appreciate it if you make these improvements to enhance the article’s accuracy and readability for all folks.

1- Official language: Persian is both the country’s official and national language. In the infobox, please change “Official languages” to “Official and national language.” For example, see the article on Greece.

I've actually changed the Greece article - national/regional languages should only be listed if not official.

2- Achaemenid Empire map: Update the caption from “The Achaemenid Empire at its greatest extent” to “The Achaemenid Empire, or the First Persian Empire, at its greatest extent.”

Done.

3- Subarticle title: Change “Abbasid revolution and Iranian renaissance” to “Iranian Intermezzo,” which is the accurate historical term for that period.

Done.

4- Subarticle title: Change “Early Islamic rule and regional resistance” to “Early Islamic period.”

I've removed the heading entirely.

5- Duplicate image: There’s no need for two images of the Supreme Leader back to back — please remove the one labeled “Khamenei in 2022.”

Done.

6- Alleged nuclear breakout attempt: This section should focus solely on nuclear-related content if it wants to be related with the subarticle's title. Please remove: “Iran's economic struggles, and the weakening of its key allies and proxies since 2023 have left the Iranian government weakened and isolated.” This part is loosely mentioned elsewhere in the article aswell.

I've removed the heading entirely.

7- Same section: The phrase “but progress stalled as Iran declared domestic uranium enrichment a red line” should be revised, since both Iran and the U.S. declared domestic uranium enrichment as a red line. Either remove this part or mention that it was declared by both sides: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-envoy-witkoff-cites-us-red-line-with-iran-against-uranium-enrichment-2025-05-18/

Removed.

8- In the same section, change the sentence: "Iran retaliated with its own missile strikes, and hostilities resulted in a brief direct conflict between the two countries" to "Iran retaliated with its own missile strikes, hitting civilian population centers and at least twelve military, energy, and government sites. The hostilities resulted in a brief direct conflict between the two countries." If citations are needed, you can find them here

I think the details are better covered by the more specific article - this article should be kept high-level.

9- Same section: Link “Iran attacked U.S. bases in Qatar” to this

Done.

10- Human rights and censorship section: Remove WhatsApp from the banned list, it’s no longer banned: https://www.reuters.com/technology/iran-lifts-ban-whatsapp-google-play-state-media-says-2024-12-24/

Removed

11- Religion section (Imam Reza Shrine image): Change the caption from “Imam Reza shrine, one of the most important religious places in Iran, Mashhad” to “Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam.” The shrine is considered one of the holiest in Shia Islam globally, not just in Iran, as its mentioned here.

Shortened the caption.

12- Regional influence section: Remove the phrase “the two countries are long-standing allies,” as Assad’s government has collapsed.

Switched to past tense.

13- Achaemenid section: Change the names “Cyrus II” and “Darius I” to the more recognized names “Cyrus the Great” and “Darius the Great.”

Done.

14- Subarticle of Iranian nuclear program, principalist dominance (2005–2024): Remove the sentence: “In May 2025, the Iranian government ordered the mass deportation of an estimated 4 million Afghan migrants and refugees who were living in Iran.” This event is unrelated to the mentioned subarticle and not significant enough to be included in the History section.

I've removed the heading entirely.

15- In the Economy section and on the image of Tehran Stock Exchange, the market capitalization of the Tehran Stock Exchange has increased from $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion. Please update the info: https://focus.world-exchanges.org/issue/february-2025/market-statistics

I've shortened the caption.

16- The mentioning of "Iran has been involved in proxy wars with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey" has been repeated in the article multiple times. Please remove the one early in the article. In the same line, change the "in 2025, Israeli strikes on Iran escalated tensions into the Iran–Israel war" to "in 2025, Israeli strikes on Iran escalated tensions into the Twelve-Day War."

This is the lead, which is meant to summarize the article, so repetition makes sense here.

17- In the "Khomeini, Iran-Iraq War, and leadership transition" section, another image is the perfect pick for this subarticle if the focus is history. Use this image and this text: "Iraqi soldiers surrendering to the Iranians after the Liberation of Khorramshahr in 1982"

Think we have sufficient images already.

Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.117.242.121 (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.117.131.145 (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5.115.138.123 (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, see responses inline above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lansbury

[edit]

I have added 3 contemporary sources with quotes from Lansbury. If you intend to remove, please show that all 3 sources do not fulfill RS requirements. Tanila001 (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of blue

[edit]

I'm aware of the policy and actively look to fix it too, so I'd suggest making WT:NFL aware since pretty much every NFL player article is formatted like this and other editors will likely revert it again. — Dissident93 (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Believe that's already happened. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)

[edit]

Hours after I remove your tag on Kimi Räikkönen, you suddenly show up on Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), another article I regularly edit, and add the same tag, despite the fact that it has been recently trimmed and is actually smaller than say, Gaza war, a comparable article which has no such tag. I sure hope I'm wrong but can't help but feel it's not a coincidence. TylerBurden (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian war is longer, but both articles would benefit from additional consolidation. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question. TylerBurden (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then: no, I'm not taking the piss. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Min968

[edit]

@Nikkimaria I'm sorry, I think there's a dispute here. If you insist on taking that content wherever you want, it's up to you. I'm also planning to withdraw from Wiki, so I don't want to get into a dispute. Min968 (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Min968: in that case, why did you revert after posting here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Before, I saw you move the content to the other article and thot it was quite reasonable, but after looking at it carefully, I realized it wasn't right, so it would be better in the Wanli article. I've removed some unnecessary content. Min968 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Min968: In that case yes, we have a dispute - I see no reason to believe that to be the case. So my question is, given your initial post here, how do we proceed? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria If you want to transfer, just transfer. Why do you need to have two articles with the same content and then tag them to cause a dispute? Min968 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Min968: I did transfer. You reverted that. So again, how do we proceed? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Okay, I see I can't compare to you in terms of experience or skill here, so I won't interfere with this issue anymore. End it here, you win. Regards. Min968 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've reinstated the transfer. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a disadvantage, I don't know how to explain my counterarguments, so I accept it. Min968 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Newspapers.com through the library

[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria. Thank you so much for for helping me understand how to do this. Your advice has worked perfectly! I'm about a month away from needing to renew my access. I'd be so grateful if you would explain a few things more things: When is the best time to renew? (Early? On time?) Do I simply click "Request Renewal" on the My Applications page at the library or must I do more? (I contacted Newspapers.com with this question but they haven't replied.) Newspaper access is so useful in order to find sources. I'm really grateful for it and rely on it a lot. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oona Wikiwalker, I'd suggest clicking that button a week or two before expiring. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOP in USA

[edit]

Nikki: Isn't this File:Grace Sherwood Statue Virginia Beach VA 20200529-108A6287.jpg a FOP violations since it's outdoor artwork, a statue, in America? It was added to the article 18 August 2025. I stumbled across this while reading about some people accused of witchcraft. MisawaSakura (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on when the statue was erected, it may or may not be in the public domain, but the image definitely should have additional tagging to indicate the statue's status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
April 21, 2007 unveiled (it's in the article). MisawaSakura (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So then yes, it's likely to be a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sculptor Robert G. Cunningham (found in refs to unveiling) is still alive, so I'll put it up at COM for deletion. I haven't done it before but should be able to figure it out. MisawaSakura (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👏 MisawaSakura (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

very small question

[edit]

Hello @Nikkimaria, hope that you're doing well. I saw this edit where you deleted the wikilink of the 1st-level subdivision from the infobox, but I've never seen a policy abt doing this before. Is it something that I'm not aware of, or was it just a random edit? (not really against it, I just want to know the reason for the edit, out of curiosity) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:GEOLINK. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 October 2025

[edit]
And the "Global Resource Distribution Committee" emerges.
Two shortlisted WMF Board candidates removed from the ballot.
Who was bumped and why?
...while Musk prepares to launch "Grokipedia".
Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
Don't get too excited before you read this.
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics alert for pages relating to the Balkans or Eastern Europe

[edit]

Information icon You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding how to format Vladimir Lenin's infobox. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Thedarkknightli (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Emily Neves § B-class/GA-class efforts

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emily Neves § B-class/GA-class efforts. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln

[edit]

There is a discussion on the Lincoln Talk page of whether the section in "Early life" should use the version which was promoted at FAC using the word "hardship", or whether to change it to the word "poverty". I've tried to make the case that 'poverty' by itself looks ambiguous since it appears to be unclear as to being either 'modest poverty' or 'extreme poverty'. Maybe you could take a look. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it, but I don't have a strong preference. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't end this on a bad note

[edit]

We have clearly disagreed and both gotten a little heated during this recent discussion. For my part I would like to reiterate previous comments. I have HUGE respect for you as an editor. We have worked together in the past and I sincerely hope we will collaborate in the future.

It appears you have decided that there is nothing more to say on this debate. I commend you for being the bigger person and deciding we are not really accomplishing anything by going in circles.

One word of caution though. Please do not remove big chunks of the discussion. I understand you recent edit summary that your comments were made on my talk page, not the talk page for {{Infobox writer}} and you would like them to stay on my talk page. That is valid. I thought that my use of {{moved from}} made clear what had happened. I also felt I owed YOU the respect of showing your excellent AGF which I sincerely appreciate. I didn't want that omitted from the discussion.

The problem is that it appears you have gotten frusturated and just want to hide chunks of the discussion. I don't think that is your intention, but that is how it appears and the reason I'm cautioning you.

As I said, I have now left your comments where they were, on my talk page.

Again, thank you for a civil debate that, in my eye, NEVER got personal. We diagree, that is fine and bound to happen, but I genuinely hope we can move forward in a positive manner. Thanks for hearing me out. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zackmann08: I posted that to your talk page, very expressly doing so instead of posting to the template talk discussion, and was very upset to see our conversation moved there in spite of that. I do not care about showing my AGF; I did not and do not want that conversation to be there. I hope that you can respect that and that we can move forward in other areas. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is totally valid. Just please know I did it in good faith and with good intentions. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality in Infobox person

[edit]

So since you brought it to my attention... I decided to try and make this happen! Would love to hear your thoughts at Template talk:Infobox person#Remove and truly deprecate nationality. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW this type of edit is why I don't want to immediately remove |nationality= from the check for unknown params... I monitor Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters with a bit of custom code that makes it show up on my userpage in red if it has anything in it and literally 10-20 times a day I catch vandalism/disruptive editing in Infobox person transclusions this way. If the category suddenly has 100,000 pages in it and 99,980 of them are due to |nationality=, it screws up my ability to catch the other 20. That's why I want to use the deprecation category and I'll probably call on PrimeBOT to clean it up in one run once the category populates. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Charles M. Schulz § GA/FA plans

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Charles M. Schulz § GA/FA plans. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also another discussion at Talk:Peanuts#GA/FA? if you're interested. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 234, October 2025

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Strong (advertisement), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Heckling and ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - November 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 11, Nos. 326, 327, 353, 354

Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes.

Online events:

Announcements:

Tip of the Month:

  • Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made
    is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each
    biography, including at least one source for each paragraph.

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if
    you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year.
  • 21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women)
  • 28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women)

Other ways to participate:

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Question about EL in Karl Ulrichs page

[edit]

Hi, thank you for checking my changes to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs.

Follow-up question: Is a link to "findagrave.com" appropriate to place under the "external links" section of that page?

I consider that particular external link to be a kind of citation or reference, in the sense that I legitimately could not find any citation or reference to prove that that phrase ("exul et pauper") was on his gravestone, until I saw that photo. Every other photo of the gravestone is too hard to read.

Is it 100% certain that this EL cannot be used as an ordinary reference/citation on wikipedia? And is it okay or advisable to place it in the external links section?

Thank you. Latvvot (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The external links guideline provides more detail, but in short: it's generally not something that can be used as a reference, but can be included as an external link when it has something uniquely valuable and does not have any major issues (such as copyright violations). In this case, since there is already a grave image, I don't think this would have sufficient unique value to include. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Isn't there sufficient value in being able to read that Latin motto? That motto is widely reported all over the place, however, you genuinely cannot see the motto on the current image of the gravestone, even if you look hard for it. The stone is cracked right in that spot. Thank you for the guidance. Latvvot (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's reported all over the place, could you not cite one of those reports? That would be better than citing any version of the stone itself, since secondary sources are preferred. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are reliable sources, and I was genuinely starting to think that this motto had been invented on Wikipedia. I mean, a clear photo is a reliable source, is it not? Thank you. Latvvot (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few reliable sources for the claim, and have added one. I've also added a more comprehensive EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's fair enough, but I'm having trouble understanding why the link to that clear photo, and the translation, is such a bad thing. The actual Latin text of the gravestone is not recorded anywhere, to my knowledge, but the full Latin text is right there in that photo, if anyone wants it. It seems pretty useful. Is that web site considered not reliable? We are only relying on the photo. Thanks. I'm new, as a wiki contributor. Latvvot (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems from the link I added that the Latin text would be available if there was a desire to source that, but could you explain why there would be? Typically English links are strongly preferred. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria&oldid=1319823698"